10.11.2010
9.2 A person may be made subject to a protection order under family violence legislation in a number of ways: a victim might apply to a court directly for an order; a court may make an order on its own motion; police—and potentially directors of public prosecution (DPPs)—might apply to a court for an order; or police might issue an order themselves, without the approval of a judicial officer. This section considers this final type of order, police-issued protection orders. It considers whether it is appropriate for police to issue these orders—and if so, in what circumstances. It also discusses whether police-issued protection orders protect victims in practice.[2]
9.3 In Victoria, Western Australia (WA), South Australia (SA), Tasmania and the Northern Territory (NT), police can issue protection orders or ‘police safety notices’ to persons who have used family violence. When police issue such notices they may generally attach certain conditions to the order, including conditions that exclude someone from his or her home.[3]
9.4 The duration of police-issued protection orders varies significantly across jurisdictions. In WA, police-issued protection orders can either last for 24 hours (without the consent of the victim, parent, guardian, or child welfare officer, as relevant), or for 72 hours (with consent).[4] The duration of a police-issued protection order cannot be extended or renewed and another police order cannot be made in relation to the same facts.[5] In Tasmania, such orders may last for 12 months, unless revoked, varied or extended sooner.[6]
9.5 The NT family violence legislation does not specify the duration of a police-issued protection order. Instead, it provides that first, the police must provide the person against whom the order is made with a copy of the order and secondly, that this copy serves as a summons for the person to appear before the court to show cause why the protection order should not be confirmed by the court.[7] The legislation further requires that ‘the time for the return of the [protection order] must be as soon as practicable after it is made’.[8]
9.6 In Victoria, a ‘family violence safety notice’ issued by the police acts as an application by a police officer for a protection order in favour of the victim, as well as a summons for the person against whom it is issued to appear in court at the first mention date for the application, which is to be within 72 hours of the police order being issued.[9] The ‘family violence safety notice’ ends on the earlier of: the court refusing to make a protection order; or, if the court makes a protection order, when the order is served.[10]
9.7 In SA, the issuing of an interim protection order by a police officer is taken to be an application for a protection order to the court, as well as a summons to the person against whom it is issued to appear in court.[11] The person against whom it is made is required to appear before the court within eight days of the interim protection order being issued or, if the court will not be sitting at the place within that period, within two days after the court next commences sitting at that place.[12] In effect, this limits the duration of police-issued interim protection orders to around 10 days.
9.8 The circumstances in which police officers can issue police orders also vary significantly across the jurisdictions. In Tasmania, for example, a police officer is empowered to issue such a notice if satisfied that the person has committed or is likely to commit a family violence offence.[13] Similarly, in SA, a police officer may issue an order if it appears that there are grounds for doing so and the person is present before the police officer.[14]
9.9 Other jurisdictions impose more stringent requirements. For example, in the NT an authorised police officer can issue a protection order only if, among other things, he or she is satisfied that because of urgent circumstances it is not practicable to obtain a protection order from the court.[15] In Victoria, police may apply to another police officer of the rank of Sergeant or higher for a ‘family violence safety notice’. They may only apply before 9am or after 5pm on a weekday or on the weekend or a public holiday, that is, essentially outside court hours. Among other things, they must believe on reasonable grounds that, until an application for a protection order can be decided by the court, a notice is necessary to ensure safety, protect a child, or preserve property.[16]
9.10 A 2008 review of the WA family violence legislation (the WA Review) found that police orders have been widely adopted by police and well received by victims and service providers:
Between December 2004 and December 2006, 12,296 police orders were issued. By way of comparison, in the 12 months prior to the introduction of police orders there were 7 telephone violence restraining orders throughout the state …
There was universal agreement amongst those consulted during the review that police orders should be retained. Critically, police orders were thought to increase victim safety …
Support for police orders was consistent across professional boundaries. Submissions from magistrates, police officers, workers in the domestic violence field, social workers and Aboriginal organisations all supported the initiative and deemed it successful. It is also noteworthy that support was strong across urban, rural and remote regions. Police orders appear to have sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of victims irrespective of locality.[17]
9.11 The WA review concluded that the orders should be retained,[18] but recommended that the requirement for the consent of the victim or other relevant person for 72 hour orders be removed, thereby replacing the 24 and 72 hour orders with a single order lasting up to 72 hours.[19] In making this recommendation, the WA review acknowledged the arguments for and against removing the consent requirement from the 72 hour order.
9.12 Arguments for removing consent include that victims in a crisis situation may find it difficult to assess how dangerous a situation is, or may be fearful of giving consent. Arguments in favour of retaining consent include: that victims should not be stripped of their ability to make decisions about their lives; and that orders made without consent increase the likelihood of consensual breaches of the order, creating enforcement challenges for the police.[20]
9.13 In particular, the WA review noted, in relation to its recommendation to allow for 72 hour police orders without consent of the victim or other relevant person:
Submissions from Aboriginal groups in remote and regional areas of the state clearly do not support this. The specific concern for these groups is the lack of appropriate places a perpetrator may stay, away from the primary residence for this extended period of time. Where there is no housing alternative there is a real risk that a breach of the order may occur leading to further contact with the criminal justice system.[21]
9.14 The rationale for the 72 hour police orders with consent of the victim was explained in the Second Reading Speech of the WA family violence legislation in the following way:
The 72 hour orders are an innovation that were sought specifically by Aboriginal women who were part of the consultation process for the writing and drafting of this legislation and also as we consulted the communities to put in place our domestic violence action plan. Many women said specifically that they did not want their men to be incarcerated, although they wanted to be protected from violent behaviour. Therefore, the 72 hour order allows for a cooling-off period. It will allow for immediate support for these women and that can be followed up with an application for a longer term order if the threatened or actual violence has not been resolved or reconciliation has not occurred.[22]
9.15 The 2008 review of the Tasmanian family violence legislation (the Tasmanian Review) noted varying stakeholder perspectives on police powers under the legislation. Some stakeholders argued that, in the context of pro-arrest and pro-prosecution policies, police powers needed to be limited in order to ensure a ‘balance’ between victims and those who use violence against them.[23] Some argued that police powers to make protection orders should be restricted to interim orders only, and that final or further interim orders should require police to apply to the court.[24] The Tasmanian Review noted that the fact that parties could apply for variation of police orders had two advantages:
The first is that interim Orders place a burden on the Court with each matter needing to be reviewed and this is avoided in Tasmania, and secondly, the avenue is open to both parties to make application to vary or revoke Orders.[25]
9.16 In a 2009 report investigating responses to Indigenous family violence in Queensland, Professor Chris Cunneen recommended that the Queensland Police Service and the Department of Communities investigate the extension of police powers to provide for short-term emergency family violence orders issued by police. The recommendation also stated that any change to police powers in this regard must be accompanied by increased services and programs in the community for those who are violent towards family members.[26] Cunneen’s report states that:
While Indigenous people have higher rates of domestic violence order use than non-Indigenous people, they are much less likely to be the person applying for the order. This raises questions about engagement with and confidence in the legal process, as well as the availability of services to assist with private applications. …
Police indicated that one barrier to the use of domestic violence protection orders was the reluctance of some police to apply for orders because of the paperwork involved in the application.
The possibility of police-issued domestic violence orders was raised by police as a way of increasing the number of protection orders in remote and rural communities.[27]
9.17 In March 2010, the Queensland Department of Communities asked in its Consultation Paper on the review of Queensland’s family violence legislation whether police in Queensland should have the capacity to issue protection orders and, if so, under what circumstances.[28] It noted, for example, that police-issued orders could provide immediate protection to victims, but that their introduction also brought ‘a risk that a sharp increase in orders may result, including cross-orders, with the consequential risk of entry into the criminal justice system’.[29]
Submissions and consultations
9.18 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether, in practice, where police have powers to issue protection orders under family violence legislation, the exercise of such powers has increased victim safety and protection.[30]
9.19 Evidence of whether these orders, where they can be made, have in fact increased victim safety appears to be limited.[31] Some stakeholders thought the police orders did make victims safer, at least in the short term or in particularly dangerous situations,[32] while others said they did not make victims safer.[33] Legal Aid WA believes that police orders have improved victim safety in WA.[34] It is not clear from these submissions whether or not police-issued protection orders have in fact increased victim safety in all jurisdictions that have such orders.
9.20 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that state and territory family violence legislation that empowers police to issue protection orders should provide that:
(a) police are only able to impose protection orders to intervene in emergency or crisis situations in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable or possible for the matter to be dealt with at that time by a court; and
(b) police-issued protection orders are to act as an application to the court for a protection order as well as a summons for the person against whom it is issued to appear before the court within a short specified time period.[35]
The Commissions also proposed that s 14(6) of the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas)—which allows police-issued protection orders to last for 12 months—should be repealed.[36]
9.21 A number of stakeholders supported this proposal,[37] though a range of views were expressed about the benefits and dangers of police-issued orders.
Concerns with police orders
9.22 Many submissions expressed concerns about police having powers to issue protection orders—even interim and provisional protection orders. Some expressed concerns about the extent and nature of police powers, and thought executive and judicial powers might be confused where police issue protection orders, in view of ‘the danger of the police failing to understand their role as ‘law enforcers’ as opposed to ‘law appliers and makers’.[38] One group even found lurking in these powers the ‘spectre of a police state’.[39]
9.23 Other stakeholders stressed that issuing protection orders was a judicial function[40] and that judicial officers ‘should determine whether an order should be made according to law’.[41] The court’s role in issuing protection orders was important to stakeholders for a number of reasons. A court advocacy service submitted that both parties need to have an opportunity to present their views and evidence:[42]
Defendants in particular need to clearly understand the order, its conditions, and the consequences of breaching the order. We believe that this can only be achieved through due process at court.[43]
9.24 Dr Jane Wangmann, who expressed ‘great concerns’ about police-issued protection orders, also stressed the importance of having to go to court, where victims often come into contact with lawyers and various services; where the victim’s story can be heard and believed; and where offenders can be told that the community does not tolerate violence.[44] Wangmann was concerned that orders issued without a judicial process of assessing evidence might further trivialise protection orders, already seen by some as ‘just a piece of paper’.[45]
9.25 The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) had a number of concerns. Referring to the NT police orders, NAAJA said police sometimes issue these orders as a ‘first resort’ or as a means of ‘covering themselves’ in case the violence later escalates; full non-contact orders issued against the wishes of both parties brought a ‘grave danger of inadvertent breach’; police often do not fully explain the orders or explain how they can be varied; and partly because of the ‘tick a box’ forms, the conditions are ‘rarely tailored to the particular circumstances of each case, and often, neither the protected person nor the defendant is asked [for] their input on the workability of that order’.[46] Moreover, if multiple factors are present, NAAJA argued, there is an ‘immense’ potential to set people up to breach orders. Full non-contact orders in remote communities, for example, ‘will invariably prove almost impossible to comply with’.[47] Orders must therefore be ‘realistic and reflect individual wishes if they are to be at all effective’.[48]
9.26 Some stakeholders were concerned that police might be less able or equipped than a court to properly identify ‘primary aggressors’.[49] One submission suggested that a policy on ‘primary aggressors’ should be adopted before police powers were extended.[50] One legal centre was concerned about ‘entrenched systematic racism in relation to Aboriginal women and children and abuse of police power in this context’.[51] It was also submitted that police might sometimes issue these orders inappropriately, such as where there is no real danger and the apparent victim does not even want an order.[52]
Benefits of police orders
9.27 In contrast to the above, a range of views were expressed about the benefits of police-issued orders. The Queensland Government, for example, noted that police orders can relieve victims of the stress and pressure of appearing in court.[53] National Legal Aid submitted that police orders allow ‘a wider range of people to be protected, at an earlier stage’ and they ‘can be made at the time of the incident or soon afterwards’.[54]
This appears to be the stage at which victims are most likely to want to press charges and receive protection orders, before the process of second-guessing and considering priorities other than safety begins. It is also the stage at which a victim is most likely to want to leave the relationship.[55]
9.28 As noted above, in the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that police only impose protection orders ‘to intervene in emergency or crisis situations in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable or possible for the matter to be dealt with at that time by a court’.[56] A number of submissions noted the value of police-issued orders in these crisis situations and when the courts are closed,[57] as well as in remote communities where courts might only sit every few months.[58] However, the Victorian Government thought that ‘emergency’ and ‘crisis’ were subjective terms and open to a range of interpretations, suggesting instead that ‘police concern for the safety of the individual is a more appropriate measure’.[59]
9.29 The Commissions also proposed that police-issued protection orders should act as an application to the court for a protection order and as a summons. However, in contrast, one submission highlighted some of the benefits of police-issued orders that do not act as an application to the court or as a summons. It submitted that the short-term police orders in WA had been particularly useful in Indigenous communities and rural and remote areas. The orders provided temporary protection for victims ‘not ready to leave the relationship’. It submitted that police should only apply for court orders ‘in line with the wishes of the victim’ and that summonsing offenders may sometimes endanger victims and their children.[60]
Duration
9.30 The duration of police-issued orders attracted considerable comment. Many stakeholders submitted that police-issued orders should only last a short time. One stakeholder submitted that police orders issued in emergency situations should not last for more than 28 days.[61] Another submitted that the respondent should be summonsed to the court within 14 days—at the most.[62] The Queensland Law Society supported the police being able to make orders for a period of up to 72 hours, so the matter can then come quickly before a court.[63] One legal service submitted that part-time rural courts should also be considered and that orders should be for: ‘perhaps 72 hours or [until] the next Court sitting day whichever is the earlier—with a maximum period prescribed’.[64]
9.31 Twelve month police orders were criticised by a number of stakeholders.[65] The Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria said the orders should be limited in duration and that twelve months is excessive.
Most family violence safety notices include an exclusion condition and we believe a restriction of this nature requires timely review. For many protected persons it provides an immediate response when the family violence intervention occurs but, in their view, ceases to be necessary once the crisis has passed.[66]
9.32 The NAAJA was also concerned about the duration of orders in the NT:
These orders can last for 12 months if not varied in court by both parties. And in our experience, this is often what occurs due to the significant potential for inappropriate, unworkable orders to be simply left in place in remote Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people in remote communities do not have ready access to legal advice on how to vary an order. They may also lack the functional English literacy skills to complete an application to vary an order. Similarly, because bush courts only sit infrequently in remote communities, they also lack opportunity to bring applications to vary an order when court is sitting.[67]
9.33 The Police Association of New South Wales, however, would like police to be given the power to issue protection orders ‘which are enforceable immediately and only referred to a court for amendment or revocation by either party’. The Association submitted that, with the consent of both parties, the order should remain in force for twelve months. It said more victims will come forward if they do not need to go to court and the Tasmanian system should be rolled out in other jurisdictions.[68]
Police applications to a remote judicial officer
9.34 There was some support for police applying to judicial officers for interim orders, usually by telephone, as they do in New South Wales (NSW).[69] Under such a system, the order is not made by the police, but by a judicial officer.
9.35 The Local Court of NSW supported the NSW ‘After Hours’ model, under which the decision about whether to make a protection order is made independently from the outset. This was ‘a preferable alternative to enabling police to make emergency protection orders.’[70] The Court stressed the importance of having independent decision makers in circumstances where legislation imposes a duty on police to apply for a protection order. It was also important to avoid a conflict of interest where a police officer has used family violence and must be made the subject of a protection order. The Court also warned against the danger of ‘net widening’—police making exclusion orders ‘as a matter of course’.
Whilst it is imperative that protection be afforded to those who require it, it is also implicit within the Act that the making of an order unnecessarily can be detrimental to the defendant.[71]
9.36 Queensland police can also apply to a magistrate to make an order over the telephone late at night or to take a respondent into custody in a more serious case, but the Queensland Law Society submitted that these applications are apparently ‘rarely brought in part due to the natural desire of magistrates not to be called at 2.00am … except where absolutely necessary’.[72]
9.37 The value of protection orders was said to depend on the willingness of police to follow up on breaches, which, it was said, the police often fail to do.[73]
Commissions’ views
A judicial decision
9.38 In the Commissions’ view, family violence protection orders should, wherever possible, be made or authorised by a judicial officer. The ALRC is required to ensure that the laws it reviews do not make the rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent on administrative rather than judicial decisions.[74] If a person’s rights and liberty need to be curtailed by a protection order, the decision should ideally be made by a judicial officer.
9.39 There are many benefits to judicial officers issuing or authorising protection orders, even remotely, such as by phone. The orders should ideally have the benefit of a judicial officer’s training and understanding of family violence legislation, its principles, and the known dynamics of family violence in practice. A judicial officer should also have a better understanding of the scope of the powers under family violence legislation and be able to tailor the order appropriately. Judicial officers are also independent of the police, and therefore serve as a check on police power.
9.40 There are further advantages when the decision is made in a court: the parties have a greater opportunity to be heard; they can use lawyers; they can use translators, Indigenous-specific support services and other court services; the court may have greater access to any family court orders or other protection orders that have been made in the past; the judicial officer can impress upon offenders the fact that society will not tolerate family violence; and the court can refer victims and persons who have used violence to appropriate services and programs.
9.41 There may be practical barriers that make it difficult for police to apply to judicial officers for protection orders. Police may be reluctant to disturb judicial officers outside court hours and they may be averse to completing the necessary paperwork associated with an application. These were the practical matters that prompted WA to adopt police-issued protection orders. In the Commissions’ view, however, these barriers do not justify removing judicial oversight of protection order matters. The barriers should be overcome through training, better forms, more efficient procedures, and perhaps specialist judicial officers trained in family violence and—where there is sufficient need—with time dedicated to considering remote applications for protection orders.
9.42 The Commissions recognise that some victims may not want a long-term protection order, and may therefore prefer a short-term order issued by the police. A victim may also not want to go to court—to explain either why he or she needs or does not need an order—and may not even want the person who has used family violence to have to go to court. The victim may only have wanted police protection while the aggressor ‘cooled off’.
9.43 The Commissions appreciate the importance of respecting the wishes of victims, but when violence has come to the attention of the state, it is incumbent on the state to consider properly and carefully the safety of victims and any children. This consideration is best undertaken by a judicial officer, preferably in a court. The judicial officer can then decide—having heard from the aggressor and, if the victim wishes, from the victim—whether the victim wants or needs further protection. Furthermore, police will only apply for a protection order where there is family violence, and the serious nature of family violence suggests that a person who has used it should at least be required to appear before a court to explain his or her behaviour and why the victim does not need protection.
Limited circumstances justifying police orders
9.44 While the Commissions would prefer all protection orders to be made by judicial officers, the Commissions are somewhat reluctant to recommend the removal of police-issued orders entirely, particularly in WA where submissions suggest they are working well and where the telephone application procedure was ineffective. In some circumstances and in some jurisdictions—particularly in remote and rural areas—it might not be possible for a court or a remote judicial officer to consider every application in a timely way. The Commissions recognise that where a victim of family violence needs immediate protection, a police-issued order will be better than no order at all.
9.45 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that where police have the power to issue orders, they should only be able to do so ‘in emergency or crisis situations in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable or possible for the matter to be dealt with at that time by a court’.[75] As noted above, the Victorian Government submitted that this test was subjective and suggested that ‘police concern for the safety of the individual is a more appropriate measure’. Police concern is also a subjective test, but the Commissions agree that the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the police to issue an order might be wider than crisis or emergency situations. The Commissions therefore recommend that police should only have powers to issue orders where it is not reasonable or practicable: for the matter to be immediately heard before a court; or for police to apply to a judicial officer for an order (by telephone or other electronic medium).
Duration, application to court, and summons
9.46 The greater a person’s rights and liberties are affected, the greater the need for judicial control or oversight. This is why the Commissions are particularly concerned about the Tasmanian model, which allows police to impose orders that may last 12 months, and effectively places an onus on the person against whom the order is made to apply for a variation or revocation. The Tasmanian provision should be amended to provide that police family violence orders last only for a short specified time—perhaps 72 hours, as in Western Australia.
9.47 The Commissions also recommend that, where police have the power to issue protection orders, the orders should act as an application to the court for a protection order as well as a summons to the person against whom the order is made to appear in court within a short specified time. This will mean that, even where it is necessary for police to issue an order, the matter will be more fully considered by a court and the parties will have the attendant benefits noted above.
9.48 Finally, to distinguish police-issued protection orders from judicial orders, the Commissions recommend that the police orders be called ‘safety notices’ or just ‘notices’—or something other than ‘orders’.
Recommendation 9–1 State and territory family violence legislation that empowers police to issue protection orders should call these orders ‘safety notices’ or ‘notices’ to distinguish them from court orders.
The legislation should provide that police may only issue safety notices where it is not reasonable or practicable for:
- the matter to be immediately heard before a court; or
- police to apply to a judicial officer for an order (by telephone or other electronic medium).
The safety notice should act as an application to the court for a protection order and a summons for the person against whom the notice is issued to appear before the court within a short specified time. The notice should expire when the person to whom it is issued appears in court.
[2] The chapter will later discuss the role of police in applying to courts for protection orders on behalf of victims, and whether some victims might need assistance to apply to courts themselves for protection orders. Ch 11 considers the making of protection orders during criminal proceedings.
[3] See, eg, Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 29(1); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 14(3). Types of protection order conditions and exclusion orders are discussed in Ch 11. Exclusion orders essentially prohibit a person who has used violence from entering or remaining in a residence shared with the victim, including where that person has an equitable or legal interest in the relevant premises.
[4]Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) ss 30F, 30G.
[5] Ibid s 30H.
[6]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 14.
[7]Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) ss 43, 44.
[8] Ibid s 42.
[9]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 31. The period of 72 hours can be extended where the first mention date would otherwise fall on a public holiday.
[10] Ibid s 30.
[11]Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 18.
[12] Ibid.
[13]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 14(1).
[14]Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 18.
[15]Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 41.
[16]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 24.
[17] Department of the Attorney General (WA), A Review of Part 2 Division 3A of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (2008), 11 (citation omitted).
[18] Ibid, 11, Rec 1.
[19] Ibid, Rec 2.
[20] Ibid, 14.
[21] Ibid, 18.
[22] Western Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 12 June 1997, 4014 (R Parker), 4015.
[23] Urbis, Review of the Family Violence Act 2004 (2008), prepared for the Department of Justice (Tas), 14.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, 15.
[26] C Cunneen, Alternative and Improved Responses to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland Indigenous Communities (2009), Rec 1.
[27] Ibid, 12.
[28] Department of Communities (Qld), Review of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989: Consultation Paper (2010), Questions 3.3.1, 3.3.2.
[29] Ibid, 26.
[30] Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks, ALRC Consultation Paper 1, NSWLRC Consultation Paper 9 (2010), Question 5–6.
[31] Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010. An independent evaluation of Victoria’s family violence safety notices was scheduled to be completed in July 2010: Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.
[32] Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd, Submission FV 179, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010.
[33] Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; National Peak Body for Safety and Protection of Parents and Children, Submission FV 47, 24 May 2010.
[34] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.
[35] Consultation Paper, Proposal 5–4.
[36] Ibid, Proposal 5–4.
[37] For example, Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; T McLean, Submission FV 204, 28 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; Better Care of Children, Submission FV 72, 24 June 2010.
[38] Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010. See also A Cannon, Submission FV 137, 23 June 2010.
[39] Juries Against Illegal Laws, Submission FV 44, 17 May 2010.
[40] J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010.
[41] Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010.
[42] Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010. See also Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.
[43] Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.
[44] J Wangmann, Submission FV 170, 25 June 2010.
[45] Ibid.
[46] North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission FV 194, 25 June 2010.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Centacare Safer Families Support Service, Submission FV 118, 15 June 2010.
[50] Centacare Safer Families Support Service, Submission FV 118, 15 June 2010. Primary aggressor policy is discussed later in this chapter.
[51] Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010.
[52] T McLean, Submission FV 204, 28 June 2010. This partner violence counsellor said that commonly a malicious neighbour will hear an argument and call the police and the police will feel obliged to make an order; the offender might then blame his or her partner.
[53] Queensland Government, Submission FV 229, 14 July 2010.
[54] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Consultation Paper, Proposal 5–4(a).
[57] Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.
[58] Queensland Government, Submission FV 229, 14 July 2010; Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 198, 25 June 2010.
[59] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.
[60] Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010.
[61] Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.
[62] Better Care of Children, Submission FV 72, 24 June 2010.
[63] Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.
[64] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.
[65] J Schramm, Submission FV 218, 1 July 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 198, 25 June 2010. Such orders can be made in Tasmania.
[66] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010.
[67] North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission FV 194, 25 June 2010.
[68] Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010.
[69] Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Local Court of NSW, Submission FV 101, 4 June 2010.
[70] Local Court of NSW, Submission FV 101, 4 June 2010.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.
[73] Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Submission FV 174, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; K Johnstone, Submission FV 107, 7 June 2010. Breach of protection orders is discussed in Ch 12.
[74]Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) s 24.
[75] Consultation Paper, Proposal 5–4(a).