Martin Vermaak Attorney Logo

New Appointments:

087 822 1639

Critical Rulings on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

HOME / Critical Rulings on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

Critical Rulings on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

shutterstock 2444764953

Critical Rulings on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

This case examines whether Glen Johnstone’s persistent communications, threats, and harassment toward the Respondent met the legal definition of harassment under the Domestic Violence Act. This Act provides critical protections for victims of harassment and domestic violence, including Protection Orders.

It highlights the protections available to victims of domestic violence through Protection Orders in South Africa.

By focusing on psychological and emotional abuse, the case illustrates how non-physical forms of harassment are increasingly recognized by the courts, reflecting the broader societal shift toward protecting victims from all forms of abuse, not just physical violence.

The Appellant, Glen Johnstone, and the Respondent, a 21-year-old au pair, were involved in a romantic relationship that ended in May 2017. Despite the formal conclusion of their relationship, both parties maintained in contact, thinking that in the future they might potentially rekindle their relationship.

However, as months passed, the nature of their interactions deteriorated, leading to an increasingly toxic and hostile environment.

The Respondent repeatedly requested that the Appellant cease all forms of communication, expressing her desire to end all contact.

Despite these unequivocal requests, the Appellant persisted in sending numerous WhatsApp messages and making phone calls, often at a high frequency.

The communication was not limited to expressions of affection or attempts at reconciliation but escalated into harassment and threatening behaviour.

On 13 September 2017, the Appellant threatened to “make her life hell,” a statement that marked a significant turning point in their interactions. Following this threat, the Respondent experienced a series of distressing incidents that she attributed to the Appellant ‘s actions.

These incidents included the creation of two fake Instagram accounts in her name, the posting of false Gumtree advertisements using her details, and false reports made to the police regarding her parents’ alleged possession of unlicensed firearms.

Additionally, a complaint was made against her at the school where she worked, alleging that she had assaulted a child in her care. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was responsible for these actions and viewed them as part of a concerted effort to harass and intimidate her.

As the psychological toll of these actions mounted, the Respondent sought legal recourse by approaching the Magistrate’s Court for an interim Protection Order.

This order, granted on 20 October 2017, was intended to provide immediate relief from the Appellant’s harassment.

However, the Appellant contested the order, leading to a full hearing where the interim Protection Order was ultimately confirmed as a final Protection Order on 13 August 2018.

Throughout this legal process, the Appellant maintained that his actions did not constitute harassment and that their communication was a regular part of their relationship dynamics.

He further denied responsibility for the more serious allegations, such as the fake social media accounts and false reports, suggesting instead that an old school friend of the Respondent might have been responsible.

Applying Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act in Johnstone v SLS

The legal issues presented in this case are multifaceted, requiring careful consideration of both the specific facts of the case and the broader legal principles involved:

Definition of Harassment under the Domestic Violence Act: The primary legal issue is whether the Appellant ‘s conduct, characterised by persistent
communication and threatening behaviour, meets the legal definition of harassment outlined in the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998.

Justification for the Protection Order: Another critical issue is whether the Magistrate’s Court was justified in granting the final Protection Order based on
the evidence presented. This includes assessing whether the court correctly applied the legal standards and principles governing Protection Orders

Evidentiary Standards in Domestic Violence Cases: The case raises important questions about the evidentiary standards required to obtain a ProtectionOrder under the Domestic Violence Act. Specifically, whether the evidence presented by the Respondent met the necessary standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Critical Rulings on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

Legal Rules and Framework Governing Johnstone v SLS

The Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 serves as the cornerstone of the legal framework in this case. The Act was enacted to provide comprehensive protection for victims of domestic violence, recognising the need to address a wide range of abusive behaviours that extend beyond physical violence.

The Act defines domestic violence broadly, encompassing not only physical abuse but also emotional, verbal, psychological, and economic abuse.

Additionally, the Act covers behaviours such as harassment, stalking, damage to property, and other forms of controlling behaviour that are aimed at intimidating or manipulating the victim.

Harassment under the Act is defined as engaging in a pattern of conduct that induces fear of harm. This can include behaviours such as repeatedly following, pursuing, or accosting a person, making persistent unwanted communications, or engaging in other actions that cause the victim to feel unsafe or distressed.

The Act is designed to provide victims with effective legal remedies, including the ability to obtain Protection Orders that restrict the abuser’s ability to contact or approach the victim.

Protection Orders under the Act can be issued in the interim, providing immediate relief pending a full hearing. To obtain a final Protection Order, the Applicant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that domestic violence has occurred or is likely to occur.

The balance of probabilities is a civil standard of proof that requires the court to assess the evidence and determine which version of events is more likely to be true.

The Act also emphasises the importance of the victim’s safety and the need for swift judicial intervention to prevent further harm. Courts are empowered to grant interim Protection Orders ex parte (without the presence of the Respondent) when there is a risk of imminent harm to the victim. This provision ensures that victims can obtain immediate protection before a full hearing occurs.

The Domestic Violence Act addresses a wide range of abusive behaviours, including harassment, stalking, and intimidation. The harassment outlined in this case falls under the scope of the Domestic Violence Act.

Applying Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act in Johnstone v SLS

Applying the Domestic Violence Act in this case requires a thorough analysis of the Appellant’s conduct in light of the legal definitions and standards outlined in the Act.

Despite her explicit requests for no further contact, the Appellant’s persistent communication with the Respondent demonstrates behaviour consistent with the legal definition of harassment.

The Appellant’s actions were not isolated incidents but rather part of a sustained effort to intimidate and control the Respondent.

The Appellant’s defence that his actions were part of the normal dynamics of their relationship fails to recognise the severity and persistence of his behaviour.

While communication between former partners may continue after the end of a relationship, the Appellant’s actions went far beyond what could be considered normal or acceptable.

His threats, coupled with the creation of fake social media accounts and false reports to authorities, indicate an intent to cause harm and distress to the Respondent.

In assessing whether the Appellant’s conduct constituted harassment, the court considered the cumulative effect of his actions on the Respondent. The court recognised that harassment is not limited to physical acts of violence but can also include psychological and emotional abuse.

The Appellant’s repeated and unwanted communications, combined with the threatening nature of his messages, created an environment of fear and intimidation for the Respondent. This behaviour, in turn, met the legal definition of harassment under the Domestic Violence Act.

The court’s decision to rely on Affidavit evidence rather than oral testimony is also significant. The Domestic Violence Act allows for using Affidavits in cases where the evidence is clear and compelling. In this case, the Affidavits provided a detailed account of the Appellant’s conduct, supported by documentary evidence such as text messages and social media posts.

Based on this evidence, the court was justified in granting the final Protection Order, as it met the required standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Legal Precedents on Harassment and the Domestic Violence Act

In analysing this case, it is essential to consider how similar issues have been addressed in other legal precedents.

The courts have consistently recognised that harassment and psychological abuse are severe forms of domestic violence that can have a profound impact on victims—in cases such as S v Baloyi (2000), the Constitutional Court emphasised the need for courts to take a broad and inclusive approach to defining domestic violence, recognising that non-physical forms of abuse can be just as harmful as physical violence.

The court’s decision in this case aligns with the principles established in Baloyi and other similar cases, where the courts have affirmed the need to protect victims from all forms of domestic violence, including harassment and psychological abuse.

By granting the final Protection Order, the court, in this case, reinforced the broad scope of the Domestic Violence Act and its commitment to providing effective legal remedies for victims.

Another relevant case is O v O (2003), where the court similarly upheld a Protection Order based on a pattern of harassing behaviour. The case involved a former partner who engaged in persistent and unwanted contact with the victim, leading to psychological distress.

The court recognised that such behaviour, even in the absence of physical violence, constituted domestic violence under the Act. This case further solidified the legal understanding that harassment can take many forms and that the law must be flexible enough to address the full spectrum of abusive behaviours.

The Broader Impact of Domestic Violence Laws on Legal Protection

The enactment and enforcement of domestic violence laws, including the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, have had a profound impact on society and the legal system. These laws have shifted the focus from merely addressing physical violence to recognising and combating all forms of abuse, including psychological and emotional harm.

This broader understanding of domestic violence has led to more comprehensive protection for victims and a greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention.

The recognition of harassment as a form of domestic violence has been particularly significant. Harassment, which often involves repeated and unwanted communication or contact, can be deeply distressing for victims and can lead to long-term psychological harm.

By including harassment within the definition of domestic violence, the law acknowledges the severe impact that non-physical abuse can have on individuals. It provides a legal framework for addressing such behaviour.

In addition to providing legal protection for victims, domestic violence laws also serve an important educational function. They help to raise awareness about the various forms of abuse and the legal remedies available to victims.

This increased awareness has empowered more individuals to seek help and has led to a greater societal understanding of the complexities of domestic violence.

Conclusion: Legal Implications of Johnstone v SLS and Domestic Violence Protections

The court’s decision in this case serves as a vital affirmation of the legal protections available under the Domestic Violence Act, particularly in cases involving harassment and psychological abuse.

By granting the final Protection Order, the court recognised the Appellant ’s actions’ seriousness and their profound impact on the Respondent’s well-being. The judgment underscores that harassment, even in the absence of physical violence, constitutes a significant form of domestic violence that warrants judicial intervention.

The Court’s Order and Reasoning in Johnstone v SLS: Key Takeaways

The court’s order provided both immediate and long-term protection for the Respondent by prohibiting all forms of contact from the Appellant and implementing measures to prevent further harassment.

The key provisions of the order included a strict prohibition on all forms of contact between the Appellant and the Respondent, a restraining order to prevent the Appellant from approaching the Respondent, and specific prohibitions against any further harassing behaviour.

The court also implemented measures to monitor the Appellant’s compliance with the order, ensuring that the Respondent remained protected.

The reasoning behind the court’s decision was rooted in several critical factors. First, the court found the Respondent’s evidence credible, supported by documentary proof of the Appellant’s persistent and unwanted communications.

The court emphasised the seriousness of the Appellant’s threats, recognising that verbal harassment, particularly when repeated and menacing, could have a significant psychological impact on the victim.

Moreover, the court considered the cumulative impact of the Appellant’s behaviour, acknowledging that the ongoing harassment created an environment of fear and distress for the Respondent.

This recognition of the psychological toll of harassment reflects a broader understanding of domestic violence, one that encompasses both physical and non-physical forms of abuse.

In applying the legal standards under the Domestic Violence Act, the court found that the Appellant’s conduct met the definition of harassment as outlined in the Act. Given the compelling nature of the documentary evidence presented, the court’s reliance on Affidavit evidence, rather than oral testimony, was deemed appropriate.

By focusing on the balance of probabilities, the court prioritised the Respondent’s need for protection while upholding the principles of justice.

The court’s decision reaffirms the importance of the Domestic Violence Act in addressing harassment. This case highlights the Act’s role in providing effective protection from all forms of harassment and domestic violence.

Implications of Johnstone v SLS for Future Domestic Violence Cases

The court’s judgment in this case has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Domestic Violence Act in future cases.

It reinforces the broad scope of the Act, emphasising that all forms of domestic violence, including psychological and emotional abuse, must be taken seriously by the courts.

The decision also highlights the importance of preventive justice. By intervening early and decisively, the court aimed to prevent further harm to the Respondent and deter similar behaviour in the future.

Furthermore, the court’s order clearly states that harassment will not be tolerated regardless of its form. This judgment is likely to have a deterrent effect, encouraging abusers to cease their harmful behaviour and empowering victims to seek the legal protections to which they are entitled.

The decision also carries a broader societal message. By addressing the psychological and emotional dimensions of domestic violence, the court contributes to a growing recognition that abuse is not limited to physical acts.

This broader understanding is crucial in ensuring that all victims of domestic violence receive the protection they need and deserve.

In conclusion, the court’s decision in this case aligns with the legislative intent of the Domestic Violence Act to provide comprehensive protection to victims of domestic violence.

It sets a strong precedent for future cases involving harassment and other forms of non-physical abuse, ensuring that victims have access to adequate legal remedies.

The court’s order powerfully affirms victims’ rights to live free from fear and intimidation and reinforces the legal system’s responsibility to uphold those rights.

This judgment not only protects the Respondent but also contributes to the evolving legal landscape that increasingly recognises the full spectrum of domestic violence.

It underscores the necessity for courts to take a holistic approach to domestic violence cases, considering the emotional and psychological impacts alongside physical harm.

The court’s clear and decisive action in this case exemplifies the proactive role that the judiciary can play in protecting victims and preventing further abuse.

Read More:

Expert Domestic Violence Lawyers – Protect Your Rights

How To Obtain a Protection Order (Explained)

Application for Protection Orders under the Domestic Violence Act (SCA Decision)

BOOK A CONSULTATION
Book a Consultation






    Send me a copy