THE committee considering the Offences Against the Person Act yesterday decided to heed the calls of seven interest groups to abandon a provision in the Bill requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to go ahead with prosecutions for marital rape.

Attorney General and Committee Chair Senator AJ Nicholson yesterday said a submission by the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) that the provision be retained, was outnumbered by objections from the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, the Bureau of Women’s Affairs, the Association of Women’s Organisations in Jamaica and Woman Inc. Others holding similar views were the Jamaica Bar Association, the St Andrew Business and Professional Women’s Club and the Norman Manley Law School. Furthermore, Nicholson said the DPP himself had expressed no discontent with the removal.

Agreeing with the decision yesterday, director of legal reform in the Ministry of National Security Dr Aileen Boxhill said while there had been several views as to why the consent of the DPP should be obtained, arguments in favour of the removal of the provision was that such cases should not be “treated differently from others, but dealt with on their own merit”.

The JCF had contended that the retention of the DPP’s consent would help to preserve the institution of marriage and the family.

In a last ditch attempt to retain the provision, Government Senator Norman Grant yesterday argued that the allowance for the DPP’s intervention would help preserve the institution of marriage.

According to Grant, “it would take nothing away from the Bill in the retention of the consent of the DPP”.

“I would tend to support that since it is an opportunity for intervention,” Grant argued, noting that the DPP’s intervention offered a chance to “save the marriage” and a “second opportunity for the family to be restored”.

“His retention does not do any damage to the legislation,” Grant pointed out.

Committee members however felt otherwise, arguing that the DPP’s office was already overworked and would probably be unable to deal with the issue with the necessary dispatch.

In addition, vice-president for Public Education and Legal Reform at Woman Inc, Joyce Hewitt, pointed out that since “marital rape occurred in a relationship that is often already irretrievably broken” it was hardly possible that any action on the part of the DPP would affect the decision by the offended party to prosecute.

“Marital rape occurs in a chronic situation where the marriage has already broken down,” she pointed out, noting that at this stage there was not much to salvage.

Hewitt said while she supported the suggestion that the family be preserved, retaining the requirement would not help.

On the issue of the nature of the undertaking to be given by a spouse after one party has violated a separation agreement, the committee eventually decided that this would not be necessary.

“The circumstances referred to in marital rape, and one of the circumstances is that there has been made against one of the spouses, an order or injunction as the case may be for non-cohabitation, non-molestation, ouster from the matrimonial home or the personal protection of the other spouse. It’s not an undertaking, it’s an order. It seems we are leaning towards removing the word undertaking,” Nicholson explained.

In previous sittings, committee members had questioned whether the undertaking would be written or oral or if the provision was really necessary.

According to Boxhill, where the spouses have separated and it is established that they lived separate lives, there was no need for an undertaking.

One major area of change to the Act will be the inclusion of provisions to make the offence of rape gender-neutral, meaning it could be committed by a male or female against both male and female. Former proposals to provide a statutory definition of rape and sexual intercourse which would extend ‘rape’ beyond vaginal penetration by a penis has since been thrown out by the committee. Instead, it was agreed that the traditional understanding of rape would be kept and have other sexual acts recognised under other offences elsewhere in the provision.

The committee continues its deliberations next Wednesday.