The outcome of a court case regarding denial of a Certificate of Good Conduct VOG for extension of a residence permit (see related story) is interesting to say the least. Justice Minister Anna Richardson did so because the female applicant was recently sentenced to community service for assault.
She therefore supposedly posed a risk to public order and safety, but the judge disagreed, finding her conviction “in the relational sphere” insufficient reason for this refusal. A VOG must now be provided by Friday.
This column is neither about the merits of this individual case nor the fact that the woman involved had been the mistress of her already married assault “victim” who reportedly wanted to break it off at the time. He successfully obtained a restraining order after the beating and biting incident.
The more important question raised by this ruling is what exactly “good conduct” means. After all, the document is used not just locally but also abroad by citizens to, for example, arrange papers there.
One would expect some understanding certainly within law enforcement at international level about the significance of such a certificate, rather than largely leaving it to the discretion of ministers, the prosecution and/or police. A seemingly logical distinction could perhaps be made between misdemeanours and felonies, but whatever the policy is needs to be clearly established and spelled out.
In fact, unambiguous conditions for granting a VOG should be common knowledge so there can be no room for favouritism or even doubt. Objective criteria are in the best general interest.
