Shari-Ann Henry | A legal duty to report domestic violence?

Too often, another story emerges of a woman murdered by her intimate partner, a child subjected to prolonged abuse, or a man suffering violence in silence.

Neighbours later admit that they heard screams, saw bruises, or suspected something was wrong, yet remained silent because they considered it “family business”. That mindset treats abuse as a private matter rather than a public concern.

The law clearly states that silence cannot always be treated as a private choice. Section 6 of the Child Care and Protection Act requires any person who has information causing them to suspect that a child has been, is being, or is likely to be abandoned, neglected, physically or sexually ill-treated, or is otherwise in need of care and protection, to make a report to the Registry. The larger policy question is whether a comparable duty should extend beyond child protection to serious violence against adults, including domestic and intimate-partner violence.

Ontario, Canada provides a useful comparison because it shows how a reporting duty can be tied to a corresponding institutional response. Under Ontario’s Child, Youth and Family Services Act, a person with reasonable grounds to suspect that a child needs protection must report to a children’s aid society, which must assess the report. The point is not to transplant Ontario law, but to illustrate how a clear reporting threshold, an identified reporting authority, and a duty to respond can operate together.

The next step, then, is not to copy Ontario’s child-protection law. It is to build on the principle already present in our own child protection framework and consider whether Parliament should create a carefully defined statutory duty to report serious violence against a child or adult where there are reasonable grounds for concern. Reports could be made to the Jamaica Constabulary Force, the Child Protection and Family Services Agency where a child is involved, or another designated authority. Just as importantly, the receiving authority should have a clear legal obligation to assess the report promptly, determine the level of risk, and take appropriate protective action where necessary.

CLEARLY DEFINE

Such legislation should do more than encourage reporting; it should clearly define when reporting is required. Where a person knowingly fails, without reasonable excuse, to report conduct falling within the statutory threshold, Parliament could prescribe an appropriate offence or other consequence. Safeguards would be essential so that the law does not criminalise mere uncertainty, gossip, or genuinely mistaken judgments. The objective should be to create a workable duty that promotes early intervention while respecting fairness and due process.

Jamaica has its international obligations to fulfil too. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to life, security of the person, and equal protection of the law, while the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises protection of the family, mothers and children through appropriate legislative and social measures. The policy case for preventive measures is that protection should not begin only after serious violence has occurred.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty, security of the person, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. A reporting framework aimed at serious and credible risks of violence would therefore have to be designed as part of a wider system for protecting those rights, while also respecting the rights of persons who may be the subject of a report.

DEEPER CHALLENGE

The deeper challenge is cultural as well as legal. The belief that what happens inside someone’s home is nobody else’s concern can discourage intervention even where warning signs are visible. After serious incidents, members of a community may say that they suspected abuse but did not know whether, when, or how to act. A clearer legal framework could help replace that uncertainty with defined responsibilities and reporting channels.

Legislation alone, however, would not solve the problem. It would need sustained public education explaining the threshold for a report, where reports should be made, what happens after a report is received, and what protections exist for persons acting honestly and in good faith. The law should also protect good-faith reporters from civil liability where they acted on reasonable grounds, even if an allegation is ultimately unsubstantiated.

The issue is whether the law should require action when there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violence and whether public authorities should have corresponding duties once a report is made. A carefully drafted statutory framework, supported by clear thresholds, good-faith protections, prompt assessment and public education, could strengthen early intervention and make the responsibility to protect life more than a matter of personal discretion.

Shari-Ann Henry is an Ontario-based barrister and solicitor and justice of the peace in Jamaica. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com