…but we did not respond
THE reported information on the death of 16-year-old Neesa Gopaul reveals a tragic tale. She appears to have suffered a long period of abuse and torment before being cruelly murdered, then stuffed in a suitcase, tied with weights, and dumped in a creek.

The bits and pieces of her story reported in the press reveal the dilemma of the abused, the power of the abuser and the inadequacies of policy in the police and probation services.

We await the full facts to emerge and to be determined by a court of law if the Police find evidence of the crime and charge any person and persons for it.

In the meantime, certain incontrovertible circumstances have already been disclosed by the press.

After the talented teen’s father died, she began to complain of events which would have raised the suspicions of anyone.

These included the suspected administration of narcotic drugs and sexual abuse. She complained but was left alone to suffer in pain and agony, presumably because no one was equipped with the knowledge or experience to do anything about it.

Apparently unable to bear her torment, she seemed to have been able to persuade her mother to accompany her to make a report to the police.

QUOTE: I have written before to the effect that the Police can play a critical role in preventing domestic and sexual violence of this type without much extra effort or resources. The reports made to the Police can be routinely transmitted to probation authorities who can then be in a position to investigate. Comments to the effect that the system has failed Neesa Gopaul have been made. The question is whether the system is sufficiently adequate to protect children like Neesa Gopaul.

Sometime after making the report, they presented a sworn statement to the Police withdrawing the complaint, a sure sign that something more sinister was afoot.

The withdrawal of the complaint ought to have been a signal to the Police that something was definitely wrong. At that stage, there should have been further or more intervention, not less, as appears to have occurred.

At some stage the intervention of the Child Care and Protection Agency was invoked. The child was removed from her home and placed with her grandmother.

However, she returned to her mother, or was forced to do so, and her mother thereafter refused officials access to Neesa. The officials have an array of powers under recent legislation to deal with such a situation, but they appear to have done nothing. Minister Manickchand has promised action.

While it appears not to have been necessary in this case, the Police should, as a matter of policy, routinely report all such cases, even if withdrawn, to the probation authorities. It is not known whether there is such a policy in the Police Force. Even if there were such a policy, it might need to be buttressed by laws authorizing them to do so and special training enabling them to identify problems which require the intervention of the probation authorities.

If such a policy existed, the probation authorities, if they have the resources for speedy action, then their intervention would be likely to have positive outcomes. In the case of Neesa, the probation authorities failed her.

It is hoped that after the Ministry’s investigation of the failure, an assessment of what could have been done should be carried out. Clearly, voluntary action was insufficient.

If Neesa’s mother was incapable of or unwilling to protect her, then the mother’s authority over the child should have been removed. This was not done and Neesa may have been forced to return unprotected to an abusive environment.

In addition, renewed police intervention was clearly necessary at the instance of the probation authorities.

In all of this, the co-operation of the victim is essential if intervention is to be effected and to succeed. Such co-operation requires a high degree of courage which is almost impossible to summon up in conditions of continuing abuse which drives the fear of violence into victims.

This fear is real and victims understand that it can be administered. This is the real power of the abuser and the threat of it may well have been the reason why Neesa and her mother were forced to withdraw the complaint to the Police.

This is a regular occurrence and, in many cases, it is not the authorities who fail the victim but it is the abuser who prevails under conditions of the threat of terrifying violence.

Where, however, this becomes clear to the probation authorities, they now have the power to take the necessary action. We do not know what they knew and how deep their investigation went.

In these difficult conditions the Government would do well to review the policies which apply in relation to the Police Force.

I have written before to the effect that the Police can play a critical role in preventing domestic and sexual violence of this type without much extra effort or resources.

The reports made to the Police can be routinely transmitted to probation authorities who can then be in a position to investigate.

Comments to the effect that the system has failed Neesa Gopaul have been made. The question is whether the system is sufficiently adequate to protect children like Neesa Gopaul. Hopefully, this is one area that the Ministry might wish to look into.

It is well known that victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse are intimidated into silence.

We cannot do nothing and then rely on the excuse that the victims are either not coming forward or are unwilling to seek or accept help. They want help.

They need help. But they want the protection of fearless authorities, acting swiftly and resolutely, so that they can feel safe enough to accept help. Neesa Gopaul reached out to us. We did not respond. (www.conversationtree.gy).