Police powers in dealing with family violence

9.106 Although protection orders are a civil remedy, and the standard of proof to obtain them is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the procedures followed are those usually associated with criminal matters.[182]

9.107 There have been numerous investigations into policing practices in the context of family violence in Australia since 2001. These have focused on issues such as police attitudes to family violence; training of police; evidence-gathering; inter-agency liaison and communication; pro-arrest and pro-charging policies; and the role of police in applying for, issuing, and enforcing protection orders.[183]

9.108 The following section discusses the special police powers that exist in most jurisdictions in the context of family violence, including police powers of entry, search and seizure, arrest, direction and detention.

Powers of entry

9.109 At common law, the police may enter a home without a warrant in the following circumstances: by invitation; in order to carry out an arrest; on reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed; or on reasonable suspicion that a breach of the peace is occurring or is about to occur.[184]

9.110 In addition, in most Australian jurisdictions, the police have specific legislative powers to enter premises without warrants in cases of family violence. These provisions are designed to overcome

[t]he difficulty police face in domestic violence cases, where the need to gain entry may be of vital importance for the victim’s safety, … that if all appears quiet and the only evidence available about possible violence is, eg a neighbour’s telephone call, the police are at risk of making an illegal entry if they enter without permission. They may face a civil action or possibly disciplinary proceedings.[185]

9.111 The scope of these powers varies between jurisdictions. Such powers may be conferred by family violence legislation, or by legislation governing criminal procedure.

Powers of entry under family violence legislation

9.112 The family violence Acts of Victoria, WA, Tasmania and the NT each confer powers of entry on police.

9.113 In Victoria, a police officer is authorised to enter premises using reasonable force and without warrant if, for example, the officer reasonably believes that a person: has assaulted or threatened to assault a family member; is on the premises in contravention of a protection order; or is refusing or failing to comply with a direction by police to remain in a place, go to and remain at a place, or remain in the company of a designated person.[186]

9.114 In WA, a police officer may enter premises without warrant if the officer reasonably suspects that a person is committing an act of family violence or that such an act was committed before the officer’s arrival. The police officer may remain on the premises for as long as he or she considers necessary to: investigate the matter; ensure that there is no imminent danger of family violence being committed on the premises; or give or arrange for reasonable assistance.[187]

9.115 In Tasmania, a police officer is authorised to enter and remain on premises without warrant and use such force as is necessary to prevent family violence at the request of the person who apparently resides on the premises; or if the officer reasonably suspects that family violence is being, has been, or is likely to be committed on those premises.[188]

9.116 In the NT, a police officer is authorised to enter premises if the officer reasonably believes that grounds exist for making a protection order, and it is necessary to remove a person from the premises to prevent an imminent risk of harm to another person or damage to property.[189]

9.117 South Australian family violence legislation confers a comparatively narrower power of entry on police. If a protection order requires a person to surrender specified weapons and articles, then police may enter and search any premises or vehicle where such a weapon or article is reasonably suspected to be.[190]

Powers of entry under other legislation

9.118 In other jurisdictions, powers of entry are conferred on police under legislation other than family violence legislation. In NSW, law enforcement legislation confers a power of entry to investigate or prevent the commission of family violence offences on a police officer if the police officer is invited onto the premises by an apparent resident, or pursuant to a warrant.[191] In Queensland, legislation setting out police powers and responsibilities confers on police powers of entry where an officer reasonably suspects that family violence is occurring or has occurred prior to the officer’s arrival.[192] The NT legislation governing police administration also confers on police an express power to enter premises where there is a reasonable belief that a contravention of a protection order has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.[193]

9.119 The Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) confers powers of entry where an officer reasonably believes that: an offence or breach of the peace is being committed; a person has suffered physical injury or there is imminent danger of injury to a person or damage to property, and it is necessary to enter the premises immediately for preventative purposes.[194] The relevant provision does not refer expressly to family violence.

9.120 The Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) empowers the SA Commissioner of Police to issue general search warrants to such police officers as the Commissioner thinks fit. The warrants generally remain in force for six months, and give the officer power to, among other things, ‘enter into, break open and search any house, building, premises or place where he or she has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been recently committed, or is about to be committed’.[195]

Powers of search and seizure

9.121 In most jurisdictions, family violence legislation or other legislation governing criminal procedure confers on police powers to:

  • search premises;[196]
  • search for and seize firearms either with or without warrant;[197]
  • search a person and any ‘vehicle, package or thing in the person’s possession’ if the officer reasonably suspects that the person has any object that may cause injury or damage or may be used to escape;[198] or
  • search and seize other articles used, or that may be used, to commit family violence.[199]

Powers of arrest, direction and detention

9.122 Usually, the police only exercise the power of arrest if they intend to charge the person with an offence. This requires some evidence and a judgment as to whether prosecution will be successful. The law of arrest is also framed to favour requiring a person to appear in court by way of summons, rather than by arrest, because of the greater coercive effect of powers of arrest. However, since in family violence cases arrest ‘provides a measure of safety’, the law of arrest has been modified in some jurisdictions to provide greater powers of arrest and detention in family violence cases.[200] These powers may be conferred either by family violence legislation or by other legislation governing criminal procedure.

Arrest

9.123 In Tasmania and the ACT, a police officer may arrest without warrant if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed or is committing a family violence offence.[201] Tasmanian family violence legislation specifies that, in deciding whether to arrest a person for family violence, a police officer is to give priority to the safety, wellbeing and interests of any affected person or affected child.[202]

9.124 Three jurisdictions also make specific legislative provision enabling arrest without warrant upon breach of a protection order.[203] In other jurisdictions, for each of the above cases, there would be powers to arrest without warrant on the basis that an offence has been committed.[204]

9.125 There are other, less common, special powers of arrest. In NSW, an authorised officer may issue a warrant for arrest if an application for a final protection order has been made, even though the person is not alleged to have committed an offence.[205] In Victoria, a magistrate or registrar may issue a warrant for arrest on an application for a protection order on the basis of a reasonable belief that it is necessary to achieve certain objects, including: ensuring the safety of the victim and the protection of child victims; preserving the property of a victim; or ensuring a person’s attendance at court for a mention.[206]

Direction and detention

9.126 In the majority of Australian jurisdictions, there are powers to enable police to detain people who have used family violence, principally but not exclusively for purposes associated with issuing, serving or applying for protection orders. The precise form of these powers differs. In Queensland, the ACT, and the NT, police are empowered to remove and detain persons who have used family violence.[207] In NSW, Victoria, WA and SA, these powers take the form of a power to direct or require a person to remain in a designated place, in default of which the person may be arrested.[208]

9.127 In NSW, for example, if a police officer makes or is about to make an application for a provisional order, he or she has a power to direct a person to remain at the scene of the incident or, in a case where the person has left the scene, at another place where the police officer locates the person. If a person refuses to remain at the specified place, the police officer may arrest and detain the person at the scene of the incident or other place, or arrest and take the person to a police station and detain the person there until a provisional protection order is made and served.[209] There is no maximum limit on the time of this detention.

9.128 The Commissions heard in consultations that there are problems in the practical application of the police power in NSW to direct a person to remain at the scene of the incident, particularly in remote areas. For example, police may need to travel in excess of an hour to attend an incident, including those that occur in remote Indigenous communities. Directing a person who has used violence to remain at the scene of the incident, when the victim is there, is problematic—especially if the incident is only attended by one police officer who needs to leave the scene to arrange for a provisional protection order. If there is more than one police officer attending the incident, one of those officers has to remain at the scene while the other goes to arrange the provisional order.

9.129 The maximum time limit of these ‘holding’ powers varies, with SA limiting the time of detention after arrest at two hours, with an extension allowing an aggregate of eight hours by court order;[210] Queensland, the ACT and the NT allowing four hours;[211] and Victoria providing for up to six hours on the authority of the police and a maximum of ten hours by order of a court.[212]

9.130 In Tasmania, a police officer may, without warrant, arrest a person they reasonably suspect has committed family violence. The person may then be detained ‘for a period reasonably required’ to determine charges; carry out a risk screening or safety audit; implement measures identified by a safety audit; make a police-issued protection order or apply to the court for a protection order.[213] A person taken into custody must also be brought before a court ‘as soon as practicable’ and s 4 of the Criminal Law Detention and Interrogation Act 1995 (Tas) applies.[214]

9.131 Special provision is also made in Victoria and Queensland to enable detention for the purposes of arranging for victim safety or services once the purpose of applying for a protection order has been fulfilled.[215]

Submissions and consultations

Entry, search and seizure powers

9.132 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether any issues arise in relation to the availability, scope and exercise in practice of police powers in connection with family violence to: (a) enter premises; (b) search for and seize firearms or other articles; and (c) arrest and detain persons. The Commissions also asked whether there is a need for legislative redress.[216]

9.133 Stakeholders that addressed this question seemed largely satisfied with the scope of these police powers: the powers were sufficient[217] and should be maintained.[218] It was suggested that the powers might not be used as often as they should be,[219] but also that powers should not be expanded just because the existing ones were not being utilised effectively.[220]

9.134 Victoria Police were consulted on the development of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) and advised that they ‘have not had any issues with the listed powers’.[221] The Queensland Law Society said these powers were regularly used and it ‘supports police being able to attend at a domestic and be able to take direct action to ensure the safety of those present’.[222]

9.135 Some stakeholders, however, expressed concerns with these police powers. The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria said police often do not know where to send respondents when they exclude them from a property. The service did not advocate the increased incarceration of Indigenous men, but submitted that where Indigenous men are detained

it is critical that high level duty of care is exercised and appropriate legal and medical arrangements are made. In addition to improved services for [Indigenous] women victims, resourcing for appropriate services for [Indigenous] men perpetrators is also required.[223]

9.136 The NT Legal Aid Commission noted that the fact that NT police powers were conferred by a broad range of legislation was ‘confusing’. The laws should be consolidated

into a single item of legislation, which more clearly, systematically and consistently sets out the scope and nature of police powers of entry, search, apprehension, detention and so on.[224]

9.137 With respect to the scope of police powers, the Commissions expressed a particular interest in whether limited express legislative powers of entry for family violence in some jurisdictions, particularly SA, were causing difficulties.

9.138 The South Australian Government submitted that SA powers of entry and search were comparatively unlimited. It said the option developed by Maurine Pyke QC, cited above, did not seem to account for the existing power of entry and search in s 67 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), which was ‘deemed sufficient for forced entry’.[225] The Commissioner for Victims’ Rights (SA) also noted that this section might be sufficient, but said:

Notwithstanding, it seems to me that the High Court has over time indicated that Parliament should state police authorities in statute law, rather than those authorities be assumed.[226]

9.139 Stakeholders did not address two further issues identified in the Consultation Paper about: whether there is a concern that police proceed by way of summons rather than arrest in some family violence cases; and the varied maximum duration of holding powers.[227]

Direction power

9.140 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that state and territory legislation which confers on police powers to detain persons who have used family violence should empower police to remove such persons from the scene of the family violence or direct them to leave the scene and remain at another specified place for the purpose of the police arranging for a protection order.[228]

9.141 Nearly all submissions that addressed this proposal, supported it.[229] The Victorian Government submitted that police holding powers were introduced in 2006, that no complaints have been made, and the powers have helped to protect victims.[230] The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative supported the Victorian practice of removing alleged offenders from the scene of the violence.[231] The Police Association of NSW criticised the ‘limited’ power in NSW and submitted that persons ‘can only be directed to remain at the location as specified by a police officer and there is no penalty attached for breaching that direction’.[232]

9.142 Remote communities present particular difficulties in practice with respect to direction powers. The Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service submitted that there may be few other places in a small community for someone to go, and if detained, they might need to be taken to a remand centre or prison many hundreds of kilometres away.[233]

Detention power to secure safety

9.143 The Commissions also asked whether state and territory legislation that confers on police a power to detain persons who have used family violence, should also empower police to detain such persons for a reasonably short period for the purpose of making arrangements to secure the safety of victims and affected children to the extent that it does not already do so.[234]

9.144 Most submissions that addressed this question, answered it in the affirmative.[235] One person, for example, submitted that this would give victims the chance to remove their personal belongings and pets without the danger of further assault.[236] National Legal Aid drew attention to the immediate safety needs of victims:

In some circumstances it is impossible to make the former residence sufficiently safe for a victim and/or children, and in those circumstances it is necessary to use the time that a person is in detention to put arrangements in place for the victim to flee. In other cases the victim actively wants to leave the house with the children rather than remain usually for reasons of safety, protection and secrecy.[237]

9.145 The Victorian Government supported the idea and suggested that the Victorian legislation, which provides police with this detention power, should be the model:

It empowers police to either direct or detain a person for a short period of time, allowing victims (and their children, if any) either time to go to a refuge or alternative accommodation if required, or some time away from the perpetrator to seek support from a family violence worker. It also empowers police to direct or detain an offender for the purposes of applying for an intervention order on the victim’s behalf and serving it on the perpetrator at the time without the perpetrator avoiding service.[238]

9.146 However, there were some concerns about using this power in response to non-criminal behaviour. The Law Society of NSW, for example, submitted that:

Interfering with the liberty of another person should only be exercised in those circumstances where the police are exercising statutory powers of arrest and bail determination. This power should not be extended to circumstances which may not involve the commission of a criminal offence.[239]

9.147 Similarly, Legal Aid NSW submitted that only ‘in very limited circumstances and for a very short period of time’ should a person be able to be detained for something ‘not linked to an offence’.[240] Some criminal lawyers also believed the time for detention should be fixed, so that ‘arguments as to what is reasonably practicable do not arise’.[241]

9.148 Submissions from Queensland and Tasmania suggested that there were appropriate safeguards in these jurisdictions. The Queensland Law Society said there were ‘adequate means’ under the Queensland legislation:

The requirement under section 69 of the Queensland Act currently is very wide ... If police believe that there is a danger of personal injury or damage to property then that is an adequate ground to take a respondent into custody.[242]

9.149 The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania considers that the Tasmanian legislation protects victims, ‘without having a greater-than-necessary impact upon alleged offenders’.[243]

9.150 Notwithstanding broad support for a limited power of detention, some stakeholders drew attention to the practical difficulties of implementing this in remote communities. To detain a person in a remote community, for example, might mean having to take them to a remand centre or prison hundreds of kilometres away.[244] It was also submitted that particular care should be taken when detaining Indigenous offenders.[245]

Commissions’ views

Entry, search and seizure

9.151 Police powers of entry, search and seizure in relation to family violence appear to be satisfactory. Stakeholders have not expressed any great concerns with the overall scope of these powers. In addition, the Commissions note the submission of the South Australian Government that police powers of entry are accounted for in s 67 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). Accordingly, the Commissions make no recommendations about powers of entry, search and seizure.

9.152 The Commissions note the NT Legal Aid Commission’s submission that NT police powers should be consolidated into one Act and clarified. The Commissions agree that laws should be simplified and consolidated where possible, but consolidating police powers—including powers unrelated to family violence—is beyond the terms of reference for this Inquiry.

Direction power

9.153 In the Commissions’ view, a police officer must be able to protect persons who appear to be victims of family violence in the short period it should take the officer to apply for a protection order. Victims should not be left exposed when they may feel most at threat—for example at the height of someone’s aggressiveness. The presence of police may make some persons more aggressive; victims should not fear that when the police are called, their safety will be jeopardised. Short term protection can be provided by directing the apparent aggressor to leave premises and remain at a specified place. To be effective, such a power would need to be enforceable, should someone refuse to comply. The Commissions consider that this power will not unduly encroach on the liberty of the person thought to have used family violence. The response seems commensurate with the risk.

9.154 While in the Consultation Paper the Commissions proposed the direction power should allow for a period long enough to enable police to arrange for a protection order, arguably, a person should be subject to police direction until the police are satisfied that the victim is safe. If arrangements need to be made for the victim’s safety, then an aggressor might need to be subject to a direction order for a short period even after a protection order is put in place. This is the case in Victoria, where the direction order can remain in force if ‘a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary ... to continue to enable further measures to be taken for the protection of the affected family member’—though usually not for longer than six hours.

9.155 The Commissions note the concerns expressed about the practical implications of the provision in the NSW family violence legislation empowering police in certain circumstances to direct a person who has used violence to remain at the scene of an incident, particularly where the incident occurs in a remote area.[246] There may be serious implications for a victim’s safety and wellbeing if the victim is in close proximity to the person who has used violence, particularly in an emotionally charged atmosphere in the aftermath of violence. A victim should be able to remain where he or she is while the police, if necessary, remove the person who has used violence from the scene, or direct that person to leave the scene and remain in another designated place, for the purpose of the police applying for a protection order or issuing a safety notice.

Detention power to secure safety

9.156 Detaining a person is a greater encroachment on liberty than directing a person to go and stay at a specified place. It is a power appropriately used for family violence that is criminal. Detaining someone who has committed a crime in a family violence context while arrangements are made to secure the safety of victims is justified. In such cases, police will have existing powers of arrest and detention.

9.157 However, some existing definitions of family violence, and the definition of family violence that the Commissions have recommended, capture non-criminal activity. The Commissions are reluctant to recommend that police powers of detention be extended to deal with non-criminal family violence, even if the person is only to be detained in the short time it might take to secure the safety of victims and their children. Some types of family violence—economic abuse, for example—might not justify police detaining someone or asking someone to leave his or her home immediately. In any event, the types of family violence from which victims might need urgent and immediate short-term protection are likely to involve criminal behaviour. It seems improbable that an aggressor who had used economic abuse, for example, and not physical abuse, would need to be detained while arrangements were made for the victim’s safety. The Commissions share the concerns of the Law Society of NSW that detaining persons in these circumstances might not be justified.

Recommendation 9–4 State and territory family violence legislation should empower police officers, only for the purpose of arranging protection orders, to direct a person who has used family violence to remain at, or go to, a specified place or remain in the company of a specified officer.

[182] R Alexander, ‘Family Violence’ in Springvale Legal Centre (ed) Lawyers Practice Manual Victoria (2009) 208–1, [2.8.301].

[183] See, eg, NSW Ombudsman, Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice (2006); Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, Policing Domestic Violence in Queensland (2005); Commonwealth Ombudsman, Policing Domestic Violence: Own Initiative Investigation into the Policing of Domestic Violence in the ACT (2001) for example contained one recommendation directed at police powers of entry—with the Commonwealth Ombudsman recommending that the AFP should include reference to police powers of entry in family violence guidelines, based on the Woden Patrol Pilot Project: Rec 1. See also Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of Family Violence Laws: Report (2006), Ch 5.

[184] Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, vol 17 Family Law, 17.5, [13].

[185] Ibid.

[186]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 157.

[187]Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62B.

[188]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 10.

[189]Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 84(1), (2)(a).

[190]Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 37. A review of South Australian family violence laws preceding the introduction of the 2009 Act raised the option of including a new police power of entry modelled on the WA provisions: M Pyke, South Australian Domestic Violence Laws: Discussion and Options for Reform (2007), 98.

[191] See Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) ss 82, 83, 85. A police officer is also entitled to request a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer reasonably suspects that a protection order has been made against the person: s 13A.

[192]Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 609.

[193]Police Administration Act (NT) s 126(2A)(b).

[194]Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 190. See also Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 188.

[195]Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 67.

[196]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 157; Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 609; Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62B.

[197]Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 86; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 159; Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62B; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 37; Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 10(5); Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 191; Police Administration Act (NT) s 126.

[198]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 16.

[199]Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 87; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 16; Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 609; Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62B(2); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 37; Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 10(3), (4).

[200] Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, vol 17 Family Law, 17.5, [21] (as at 7 January 2009).

[201]Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 212(2); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 11. The definition of a ‘domestic violence offence’ in the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 212 is linked to the definition of ‘domestic violence’ in the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT). See also Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 34(1) which provides a power of arrest in circumstances connected to the service of an interim protection order.

[202]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 11.

[203]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ss 38 (safety notice), 50 (intervention order); Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 365(1)(j); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 36.

[204] See, eg, Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 99.

[205]Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 88. The officer must issue such a warrant if it appears that the personal safety of the victim will be put at risk unless the defendant is arrested for the purpose of being brought before the court.

[206]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 50.

[207]Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 69; Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) s 75; Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 84 (removal permitted if necessary to prevent imminent risk of harm to a person or damage to property).

[208]Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 89; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ss 13–15; Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 62F; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 34(1), (2). The Victorian Act also allows the police to direct the person to remain in the company of a designated person.

[209]Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 89.

[210]Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 34.

[211]Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 69; Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) s 75; Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 84.

[212]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 18.

[213]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 11(4).

[214] Ibid s 11.

[215]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 18(3); Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 69(3).

[216] Consultation Paper, Question 5–10.

[217] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; A Cannon, Submission FV 137, 23 June 2010.

[218] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.

[219] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[220] A Cannon, Submission FV 137, 23 June 2010.

[221] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.

[222] Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.

[223] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[224] Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, Submission FV 122, 16 June 2010.

[225] Government of South Australia, Submission FV 227, 9 July 2010.

[226] Commissioner for Victims’ Rights (South Australia), Submission FV 111, 9 June 2010.

[227] Consultation Paper, [5.121].

[228] Ibid, Proposal 5–6.

[229] For example, National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010; Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010.

[230] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.

[231] Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd, Submission FV 179, 25 June 2010.

[232] Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010.

[233] Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service, Submission FV 117, 15 June 2010.

[234] Consultation Paper, Question 5–11.

[235] For example, Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 July 2010; Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.

[236] Confidential, Submission FV 69, 2 June 2010.

[237] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.

[238] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.

[239] Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010.

[240] Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010.

[241] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.

[242] Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.

[243] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.

[244] Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service, Submission FV 117, 15 June 2010.

[245] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[246]Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 89.