The ‘laissez-faire’ attitude by Guyana’s police officers with respect to complaints of domestic violence were among some of the issues which won a woman and her daughter further time in Canada after the judge also pointed out that a 2008 report found that the legislation against domestic abuse in Guyana was frequently not enforced, and that police officers could be bribed to make cases of domestic violence “go away.”
Canadian Judge Michael A. Kelen in a judgment last month ordered that 42-year-old Doopattie Persaud and her 19-year-old daughter Gayatri Ramdehool face another Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer after he found another officer erred in their 2009 decision to have the two deported to Guyana.
The two, who were never legal in Canada, are fighting deportation to Guyana on the grounds that they would receive no protection from Repunandan Ramdeholl, their ex-husband and father respectively, who himself was deported to Guyana last year for “violently” attacking Persaud.
Following the ruling by the PRRA officer late last year the two applied to the immigration court for a judicial review of the decision and Judge Kelen agreed with the arguments presented by their lawyer and ordered the review.
According to a background of the case the two along with the now deported Repunandan Ramdeholl entered Canada on August 19, 2003 and claimed refugee protection on December 10, 2003. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed the refugee claim on July 15, 2004, finding they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Their application for leave to judicially review the RPD’s decision was dismissed. The first PRRA which included Mr Ramdeholl was dismissed on December 6, 2005. The applicants did not depart Canada by the required date. An immigration arrest warrant was issued but it was not enforced until the applicants came to the attention of immigration authorities.
According to Justice Kelen’s decision, a copy of which was seen by this newspaper, the couple’s 26 year-old relationship was “marked by physical, verbal, and psychological abuse inflicted by Mr. Ramdeholl.”
“In Guyana, Ms. Persaud attempted to escape her ex-husband’s abuse but she could not find shelter with her impoverished family. The applicant made a number of police complaints in Guyana which were dismissed,” the judge said.
It was stated that while in Canada Ramdeholl divorced Persaud on May 12, 2008 but they continued to cohabit along with their daughter. Trouble struck on March 10, 2009 when Ramdeholl “violently assaulted Ms. Persaud with a meat cleaver and injured her. He also tried to strangle her. She went to the hospital which reported the assault to the police.” The report by the police led to criminal charges against Ramdeholl and his deportation on May 8, 2009.
The authorities also re-initiated removal proceedings against the woman and her daughter and they filed their second PRRA on March 25, 2009 alleging “a risk of persecution at the hands of Mr. Ramdeholl in Guyana in revenge for his deportation.” The PRRA officer ruled that they be removed from that country on October 26, 2009.The applicants’ removal was administratively deferred on June 26, 2009 pending the decision on their PRRA and judicially stayed on January 25, 2010 by Justice Barnes following the PRRA Officer’s negative decision on October 16, 2009.
In their decision the officer found that the two were not able to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Guyana from Ramdeholl. The officer determined that there was insufficient objective evidence that would discharge the applicants’ obligation to seek state protection or that Guyana is not able or willing to provide state protection.
In his submissions counsel for the two, Ravi Jain indicated that Ramdeholl demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusive and dangerous behaviour towards Persaud over the past 20 years that they had been together. He regularly abused Persaud both physically and emotionally, but she “remained in the relationship out of devotion for her husband and the sake of their daughter.”
“Counsel contends that during the years she was abused by Mr. Ramdeholl in Guyana, the principal applicant attempted to seek help from the police on a number of occasions. However, once Mr. Ramdeholl discovered she had gone to the police, he would pay a bribe to the officers in charge and the record of her attempt to seek help would quickly ‘disappear,’” the judge pointed out in his decision.
He submitted that his clients fear returning to Guyana where Ramdeholl could persecute them in revenge for his deportation from Canada.
While the PRRA Officer acknowledged that domestic violence in Guyana is a widespread phenomenon, a review of the country’s documentation indicated that the state of Guyana has taken responsibility to alleviate the problem of domestic violence through developing educational programmes; publishing reports; raising public awareness; establishing support services for abused women; and police training on effective handling of domestic abuse cases and the formation of specialized domestic abuse units in each police division.
The officer further found that domestic abuse victims could avail themselves of Guyana’s Domestic Violence Act, which authorizes the dispensation of protection orders which can be enforced by police.
“The Officer concluded that the applicants would not face more then a mere possibility of persecution or danger of torture, a risk to life, or a risk of unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Guyana because of the adequacy of state protection,” the judge said and as a result they ruled that the two be deported. The judge in his ruling noted that information in the officer’s Response for Informa-tion Request (RIR) (it was not stated to whom the request was made) that indicated “bribery can be used to dismiss criminal complaints of abuse and that police take a laissez-faire attitude when a complaint is filed.”
While much has been done on the domestic violence front in Guyana women continue to be killed and maimed by their partners and critics have called for more to be done. Only recently the PNCR called on the government to “adopt a policy of zero tolerance” to the “endemic” domestic and sexual violence against women in Guyana.
And a few months ago PPP/C executive Ralph Ramkarran, who is also Speaker of the National Assembly called for the government to actively seek out cases of domestic abuse
“The government must be proactive and seek out cases of domestic abuse starting right now. The ministry can no longer wait for reports. These are not difficult to find. If the police report complaints of domestic violence to the ministry, intervention by social workers can be effected before ‘murderation’ takes place,” Ramkarran had written in his column in the Guyana Chronicle.
