"Domestic Violence is a Crime"

From the Evening Standard, 6 September 1997, page 2:

Woman sorry about shooting

Court reporter

A KIMBOLTON woman who shot her partner in the thigh with a .22 during a row over another woman yesterday admitted three charges in Palmerston North District Court.

Hazel Ann Gill, 23, entered guilty pleas to recklessly causing injury with a firearm, unlawfully presenting a firearm and unlicensed possession of a firearm.

Police withdrew two other charges.

Counsel, Fergus Steedman, said the police had "laid comparatively sympathetic charges" and his client was ashamed and remorseful.

The court had heard from Sergeant Terry Gibbons that about 1am on August 28 a domestic argument over another woman rose to the point of Gill brandishing a poker at her partner. He took it off her.

She went to the bedroom and got the rifle, then went to the kitchen and got one round of ammunition.

Her partner barred the way into the lounge. She raised the rifle, he turned away and was shot in the upper thigh from behind. The flesh wound required hospital attention to remove the bullett.

Judge Patrick Toomey remanded Gill on bail to September 18 for sentence.

From the Evening Standard, 10 October 1997, page 1:

Shooting 'would normally mean jail term'

Court reporter

A YOUNG woman who shot her partner in the leg during an emotional confrontation over another woman had an 18-month jail term suspended by Judge Partick Toomey in Palmerston North District Court yesterday.

Judge Toomey told Hazel Ann Gill, 23, the admitted offence of reckless wounding with a firearm was "a matter involving serious violence and quite serious injury" and warranted a jail term. However, she met the factors established in law for him to suspend the term for two years.

The incident occurred in a Rangiwahia house in the early hours of August 28.

Counsel Fergus Steedman told the court that Gill's partner had been out late. Another person boarding at the house had suggested to gill that her partner was conducting another relationship.

When he came home she questioned him and matters escalated from there. Mr Steedman said Gill believed she was not being taken seriously.

Her intention with the .22 rifle, when her partner turned and walked away from her, had been to fire into furniture. When she hit his leg and he collapsed she was horrified.

There was no telephone in the house. Gill could not start her partner's car. She ran down the road to the nearest house - some kilometers away - but on-one was home. By the time she had run back home, the boarder had managed to start the car. They drove to another house and telephoned for help.

The ouotlook for the victim was good, Mr Steedman said. Police could have laid far more serious charges against Gill, he said, but had taken a sympathetic approach.

This was my letter in reply:

Dear Sir,

Outside the Police Station is written, "Family violence is a crime, call for help". You report (10 October) on a woman who shot her partner. The police were "sympathetic" and laid relatively light charges. The judge was also sympathetic and gave a suspended sentence. One "justification" given is that she "believed she was not being taken seriously".

Should we believe that the woman is so immature that she cannot be held responsible for her actions? Has she at least been ordered to attend a stopping violence programme? What incentive does this give for a man to report violence by a woman? When fathers are being locked up and fined for talking to or phoning their children, it is hardly surprising that crime statistics indicate that most violence is by men.

I note that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a "Women's Access to Justice" project. It is based on the presumption that the law is biased against women. Their brief only requires them to survey women before making policy recommendations. There is some debate about having a different law for Maori. For family violence, do we already have a different law for women?

Stuart Birks, 23 October 1997