PRESS STATEMENT

“WE ALL FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT RACHEL LIMAE STEVEN’S LIFE WAS AT GREAT RISK OF BEING LOST. WE SHOULD BLAME OURSELVES FOR HOW WE HANDLED THIS CASE — BECAUSE THERE IS STILL A GAP IN THE SYSTEM.”

Tatavola Matas Coordinator – Vanuatu Women’s Centre

I am writing this story so that we all understand that when a client shares her story with us as authorities, we must consider that her life is important, and that every perpetrator (person who commits violence) is different. It is important that we understand the history of violence the client has been facing, properly read and understand that history, and apply the law as it stands.

Rachel did not “abscond” as many people have been saying on Facebook. She completed her 3-year contract and returned to Vanuatu. Rachel arrived back in Vanuatu in February 2026. Rachel had been living in a relationship that involved extensive patterns of controlling behaviour, and despite her partner repeatedly taking other women, and despite facing much domestic violence, Rachel continued to live with him out of fear and threats from her partner. John had threatened to kill her many times, and told Rachel he was not afraid to go to prison. On one occasion John chased her with a gun and Rachel fled and hid in a car. This happened some years before she went to Australia.

Rachel returned to Vanuatu in February 2026, and applied for a Protection Order in the same week. The Magistrates Court issued a Protection Order on 19 February 2026, because John had been approaching her and demanding she send him money. If Rachel did not send it, she would receive highly threatening messages involving references to death.

In the first paragraph of Rachel’s application to the court for a protection order, it is clear that Rachel had been facing “extensive death threats throughout her relationship,” and in the last paragraph of the application she described death threats John had been sending through family members, saying he would cut Rachel into pieces when she returned to Vanuatu.

Within the Family Protection Order Application, she had requested that the Court order Police to remove any weapon in John’s possession and surrender it to the court, as provided under Section 14(b) of the Family Protection Act. The Court issued an order in February 2026, but the order given contained only the usual general court orders — not to come near the victim, not to contact the victim, not to commit domestic violence — and ordered John not to use any weapon. The Court failed to order John to surrender the gun or any other weapon to police, despite the high level of threat of violence, and despite the application specifically requesting the court to order police to remove any weapon in John’s possession.

At the first court review on 24 March, Rachel attended the review but John did not. At the second review date on 24 April 2026, both Rachel and John attended, and the court decided to revoke the order. Section 38(5)(a) of the Family Protection Act states that before the court revokes a Family Protection Order, it must consider Section 11(2) to (4) of the Family Protection Act. That section states that before the court revokes an order it must ensure that:

1. The victim has not experienced any domestic violence,
2. The victim and any children are safe and have a place to stay (in cases where children and mother are together as victims),
3. Other family members are safe and have a place to stay, and
4. Any other matter the court considers appropriate.

In Rachel’s case, the threats were extremely serious throughout her relationship with John, so the court should have treated this as a “high risk” case and not revoked the order hastily, and if necessary should have issued a judicial charge as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, and summoned the Perpetrator to court, as has happened in other high-risk domestic violence cases.

We can say that the court had already revoked the family protection order and police only provided assistance to Rachel. Rachel asked for police assistance because she knew her life was at great risk, but the question is: why did the two officers allow John to go inside the house? Normally during a police assistance, the Perpetrator should remain outside with police while the victim goes inside the house to collect her personal belongings, to ensure no further violence occurs against the victim. But in Rachel’s case, the two officers allowed John to go inside the house while Rachel was inside, and after that, John shot Rachel. Why did the two officers not follow the procedure that other officers follow, as set out in the Family Violence Standard Operating Procedure of the Vanuatu Police Force?

The Vanuatu Women’s Centre failed to follow up on Rachel’s case and ensure she was safe, and to look at what the best options were for her to follow after the court revoked the Family Protection Order, given the high-level threats to her life.

Rachel’s case shows that we as service providers failed to keep Rachel alive. The court had issued a protection order — that order should have ensured Rachel was safe and alive, but that did not happen. Police provided assistance to Rachel and should have followed correct procedure to ensure Rachel was safe and alive, but that did not happen. The Vanuatu Women’s Centre should have followed up on Rachel’s case and ensured she was safe given the high-level threats she had been receiving, but that did not happen. The agencies did not work together, and there was no coordinated approach to this case, causing us all to fail. Rachel had trusted us, but we failed her.

In Vanuatu:

• 71% of women have experienced at least one form of violence (physical, sexual, emotional or economic) by a partner or husband during their lifetime.
• 30% of women are currently facing physical or sexual violence.
• 12% of women have been physically assaulted while pregnant.
• 19% of women have faced violence through the use of technology, such as controlling behaviour through phones and online platforms.
• 32% of women have experienced violence during or after a disaster.

(2nd Prevalence Study on Women’s Lives and Family Relationships; VWC & VBoS 2024)

The Vanuatu National Gender-Based Violence Multi-Sector Service Delivery Protocol, which we have been discussing at government level and have done much work on over many years — where is it now? If that Protocol were in place, agencies would have coordination and would follow the correct process of case management to manage high-risk cases. Rachel Limae Steven died because we did not do our work properly.