Changing Practices: The Specialised Domestic Violence Court Process

Specialised domestic violence courts, initially developed in the United States of America, have been recognised by other jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. This article presents a case study of K Court in Toronto, drawing upon documentary evidence, direct observations and interviews with key informants. It is argued that the specialised domestic violence court process includes changing practices of some of the key stakeholders. Learning lessons from abroad can offer jurisdictions insights that can steer implementation of appropriate practices in the field. Specialised Courts and Problem-oriented Courts The specialisation of courts in the criminal justice system is well established (Walsh 2001; Freiberg 2002). The American Bar Association (1996) clarifies ‘specialization’ as: Traditionally, specialization refers to a specialized subject matter combined with subject matter expertise. With reference to courts, specialization usually signifies that a court has limited and frequently exclusive, jurisdiction in one or more specific fields of the law. Specialized courts are typically defined as tribunals of narrowly focused jurisdiction to which all cases that fall within that jurisdiction are routed. Problem-oriented courts seek ‘to use the authority of the courts to address the underlying problems of individual litigants, the structural problems of the justice system, and the social problems of communities’ (American Bar Association 1996). The principles and approaches of problem-oriented courts (or problem-solving courts in the American literature), such as domestic violence courts, drug courts, mental health courts and youth courts are considered to be therapeutic jurisprudence (Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators 2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence was first described in the context of mental health law (Wexler and Winick 1992). In the prosecution of domestic violence cases, therapeutic jurisprudence seeks to increase the therapeutic consequences of law and when consistent with other important values, can reshape law and legal processes in ways to assist the accused and their victims (Winick 2000). Common elements The Howard Journal Vol 44 No 2. May 2005 ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 113–124