UBS Optimus Foundation.

This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

This British Academy/Leverhulme-funded research investigated the health and justice service responses to the needs of South Sudanese refugees living in refugee settlements in Northern Uganda who had been subjected to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and torture. It involved the collection and thematic analysis of the narratives of 20 men and 41 women who were refugee survivors of SGBV and torture, including their experiences in South Sudan, their journeys to Uganda and experiences in refugee settlements, in particular their access to health and justice services. Thirty-seven key stakeholders including international, government, non-government organisations and civil society organisations were also interviewed regarding their experiences of providing health and justice services to refugees. All refugees had survived human rights abuses mainly carried out in South Sudan but some had also occurred on route to Uganda and within Uganda. Despite the significant impact of their experiences, the analysis indicated that there was limited service response in refugee settlements in Northern Uganda once the immediate humanitarian crisis ended. The thematic analysis indicated five main themes coming from the interviews. These included: the nature of refugee experiences of SGBV and torture, including domestic violence and child abduction and forced marriage; issues associated with service provision such as lack of adequate screening and under resourcing of health and justice services; a lack of gender sensitivity and specialist services, particularly for men; the sustained involvement of civil society organisations and local non-governmental organisations in providing counselling and offering emotional support and hope to survivors; and enhancing health and justice responses and services to improve refugee recovery, dignity and resilience. The authors recommend that integrated gendered and culturally sensitive service provision should be adopted, which brings together formal and informal health, justice services and survivor support programmes.

Background: There is a paucity of research on women offenders in the South African context, particularly those referred for forensic psychiatric observation. Little is known about their life histories, the nature of their offences or the psycho-social contexts that enable, or are antecedents to, women’s criminal offending.Aims: This research study, the largest of its kind in South Africa, examined the psycho-social contexts within which women offenders referred for psychiatric evaluation come to commit offences. The profiles of both offenders and victims, as well as reasons for referral and forensic mental health outcomes, were investigated.Methods: A retrospective record review of 573 cases, spanning a 12-year review period, from six different forensic psychiatric units in South Africa, was conducted.Results: The findings describe a population of women offenders who come from backgrounds of socio-demographic and socio-economic adversity, with relatively high pre-offence incidences of being victims of abuse themselves, with significant levels of mental ill-health and alcohol abuse permeating their life histories. The majority of index offences which led to court-ordered forensic evaluations were for violent offences against the person, with murder being the single most common index offence in the sample. Most victims of violence were known to the accused. There were also relatively high rates of psychotic and mood-spectrum disorders present, with relatively low rates of personality disorders. The majority of women were deemed to be trial competent and criminally responsible in relation to their index offences.Conclusion: It is recommended that more standardised and gender-sensitive forensic mental health assessment approaches, documentation and reporting be employed throughout the country. Future research should compare male and female offending patterns and forensic mental health profiles.

In 2008/9 MOSAIC, 1 with the assistance of the Gender, Health & Justice Research Unit (UCT), embarked on research that sought to identify the factors that contribute to domestic violence victims withdrawing from the legal process before they finalise protection orders (POs) applied for under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA).2 This study was based on the 2008 work of this author who, in partnership with MOSAIC, interviewed 365 domestic violence victims in the Western Cape about their engagement with and retraction from the criminal justice process. 3 The second tier of this project -reported on hereemerged with more focused interview schedules and the addition of eight jurisdictions from which the sample was drawn. The findings from this study were extensive and pointed to a range of personal, systemic and structural reasons why Domestic Violence Act [DVA] applicants disengage from the criminal justice process. This article will limit its focus on three areas that are relevant to the decision by survivors to withdraw their applications for protection orders: the history and severity of violence, deadly threats, and key findings relating specifically to experiences of DVA applicants with the courts.The Domestic Violence Act (DVA) (No. 116 of 1998) was promulgated in 1999 with the aim of creating a civil remedy that was accessible, affordable and ensured that 'victims of domestic violence received the maximum protection from domestic abuse that the law could provide' . 4 Under the DVA, victims of domestic violence may apply for a Protection Order (PO), which aims at preventing future acts of violence.5 It involves a two step process. The victim of domestic violence applies for an interim protection order (IPO) 6 which is granted if the court is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that the 'respondent' (the alleged abuser) has committed an act of domestic violence and that the applicant (the victim) would suffer undue hardship if a protection order was not issued immediately. Where urgency can be shown, an IPO is issued. 7 The second part of the process involves finalising the order. Once the IPO is served on the respondent, the applicant and the respondent are required to return to court on a certain date -referred to as the 'return date' -for a hearing during which the respondent is afforded the opportunity to present to the court reasons why the protection order should not be finalised. If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent has committed or is committing an act of domestic violence, the protection order can be finalised (or varied in some way).8 It is in the period between the application for an IPO and the finalisation of the protection order that cases fall out of the system. Why victims of domestic violence retract from the criminal justice process DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTRITION RESEARCHThe sampling was purposive, specifically targeting complainants who did not return to court to finalise their protection orders. The research took place over a six-month period. T...