Civil Disputes,a legal Free for all.

If you're looking for adequate protection from domestic Violence then Intervention orders aren't really the answer. You could walk out of a court today with an Intervention Order and get stabbed or shot going out shopping or getting off a train.

An Intervention Order report goes a long way to explain what is wrong with the direction legislation has taken. It is clear that many Civil Disputes have been traditionally regarded as Trivial, and not worthy of Police Attention but now with the introduction of specific legislation, what is now occuring is a shifting in these low-status disputes. Police are assisting in the transformation of these Civil Matters into Stalking Intervention Orders because Police are directing these matters to the Courts, they say we can't really take any action until after you have an Intervention Order. What they are really doing is Trivialising Intervention Orders so they become less effective in Protecting Victims of Real family Violence.

Discontent has been expressed by Some Magistrates at what they see as non-productive tying up of the resources of the Court on these types of disputes. The Stalking Legislation means that it has easily covered a huge range of human conduct, including comparatively petty matters, but Magistrates can be reluctant to refuse an intervention order in case they are blamed for being the person who failed to prevent domestic violence, property damage or the death of the applicant. The ease with which interim intervention orders are obtained encourages exaggerated allegations to be made in statements of complaints. In many cases neither the "complainant" or the defendant turn up to court and the matter is simply struck out. Many of these are issued by the complainant to purely cause inconvenience to the defendant.

An application for an intervention order is a civil matter between the parties, unlike a criminal matter that is between the State and an individual. This is the big problem with the System, any trivial non criminal activity can then become viewed as a criminal act because a Magistrate makes a decision in regards to an intervention order. This means Your everyday routine could result in you being charged with breeching an Intervention Order as a result of continuing to do what you normally do, even if you aren't a violent person. It can seriously affect where you go shopping, where you exercise, the possibilities are endless. An Intervention order can regulate almost every aspect of your life, and they can be easily used unfairly and unnecessarily against you and severely limit your freedom of Movement.

A handbook about Intervention Orders available from the courts states that the distance imposed is often 200 metres but can be any specified distance, enough to protect the so-called aggrieved family member, but not so far that it limit’s the freedom of movement of the other person unfairly or unnecessarily. This is completely false and misleading, because issuing Intervention Orders in Civil Disputes has created a free for all in our Court Systems over trivial matters. Decisions made by the Magistrate are supposed to be based on the balance of Probabilities and for an intervention order to be granted in Victoria, a Magistrate needs to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has assaulted, damaged property, threatened, harassed, molested or behaved in an offensive manner and is likely to do so again.

A defendant was told by a magistrate that Intervention Orders were designed to create so called Boundaries for the defendant, and it was important that the defendant didn't cross those Boundaries which may result in a Breech of an Intervention Order and a possible Jail Term. The problem is nobody seems to know what those boundaries are in many situations.

An "AFM" was in the witness box reading her statement of Complaint, when the Magistrate said, you have listed a series of "FACTS" in your application are they true and Correct. When the defendant agreed to the Intervention order without making any admissions to the Court, the Magistrate explained that this meant that there was no "finding of Fact" made by the court because it had been granted without admission. You have to say, there seems to be no difference made between Allegations and so called facts, You should be aware that an AFM has no right to an interim order. The Act gives the court the discretion to make an interim order yet the discretion seems to be rarely declined.

Here are Some more examples of how ridiculous Intervention Orders can be.

A defendant went to a local hotel on a Friday Night to watch a footy match on the Hotel's Large Screen, he had been watching the Match for 3 Quarters when his Ex-brother-in-law walked in, he had been at the Local Dance and after the Dance Closed, a group of dancers had gone to the Hotel for a drink. The ex Brother-in-law then expected the defendant to leave the Hotel after watching 3 quarters of the game, because he had an intervention Order against him. He then reported this to the Police as a Breech of an Intervention Order, because the defendant didn't immediately leave the Hotel.

This can easily happen because Intervention Orders are person Specific and only apply to the defendant and not the applicant as stated by a Magistrate. This technicality in the law can easily became an incitement for Violence when the applicant steps over the boundaries of common Sense. In another case a man and his ex Brother-in-law had intervention Orders against each other. There was a meeting to be held at the local Civic centre by a club that one of the defendants was a member of, the problem was his club had also invited a club that his ex brother-in-law was also a member of. One of the Brother-in-law's rang the Police to enquire how the Intervention orders worked in this situation. He was told by the Policeman that he would be arrested because he was "Knowingly" going to a place he knew his ex Brother-in-law could be at.

The defendant asked the same question of a magistrate who simply said, if it was me I wouldn't be going, he didn't explain how it would be a breech of an Intervention Order and on a previous occasion he had asked the same Magistrate for a definition of " Changed Circumstances" in regards to revoking Intervention Orders, the Magistrate would not give the defendant clarification on his question or give examples of what constituted " Changed Circumstances".

If Magistrates are unwilling or can't define how the laws operate, what hope does the defendant have of staying within the " Boundaries" of these laws. It's ridiculous. There are no Boundaries or guidelines at all when it comes to Magistrates or Registrar's issuing Intervention Orders.

What makes it more confusing is how these orders are then interpreted. A Police Pamphlet on Domestic Violence says this. “In a respectful and Equal Relationship, both Partners feel free to state their opinion and sometimes they argue and get Angry”, but what happens if you have in-laws that are interfering in your relationship with your wife or Husband, at what point does your right to tell your In-laws to mind their own Business, become Harassment and Intimidation??. An Intervention order says that you can’t harass or intimidate the Aggrieved Family Member but where do you legally draw the line?What are the Boundaries???, The Problem is that these types of Civil disputes can easily be Exaggerated and misused for an Intervention Order. The Definition of Family Violence can range from a dirty Look to Murder!!!.

In a normal Court situation, physical evidence is presented to ascertain a person’s guilt or innocence, but how do you quantify what Harassment and intimidation is when people can react to it in different ways? What is harassment and intimidation to one person isn’t necessarily interpreted that way by another person. It’s like saying, how long is a piece of String.

A husband had been unable to contact his estranged wife and he had been sending correspondance via a solicitor to his wife's solicitor, they had been unable to get any response from his wife and eventually they said they would no longer act on her behalf. The husband hadn't received any letters or phone calls from his estranged wife, who was living with her mother. He was legally trying to follow the right procedures.

Finally the husband decided after quite some time to go to his Mother-in-laws house to speak with his estranged wife. He was quietly discussing the situation with his wife at the front door,when his mother-in-law interrupted and told him to leave her property. He left the property but his Mother-in-law then issued an Interim Intervention Order, which she later withdrew, her allegations were extremely exaggerated. The defendant's wife was living with her mother, because she told her husband that she wouldn't live with him until after he signed over half his house into her name.

One so called aggrieved family member told a magistrate that he believed the defendant was breeching an intervention order because he was going to his place of Work, he worked as a gardener for a Local council and worked on road nature strips and Parks and Gardens in the Councils Area which also included the Area where the Court was Located!!!!. How far do you take the interpretation of a persons Workplace.What happens if the AFM is a Security Guard at a large Shopping Centre, does that mean the defendant can no longer shop at that Shopping Centre???.

A defendant went to court to contest an Intervention Order that had stopped him driving down the road to a Gym that he had been a member of for nearly 11 years. When the final Intervention order hearing came before the Court, the AFM agreed to an order with a distance of 3 Metres. The Magistrate almost laughed but granted the AFM a 3 Metre Intervention Order. 6 weeks later the AFM applied to the court to vary the order to 25 metres, the defendant again went to Court but the AFM didn’t attend Court and the Variation was struck out. The AFM didn’t even use the Gym but claimed before a Magistrate that the defendant was going into “ her Area” which they explained to the Magistrate included the Whole Suburb. This was just another trivial excuse for an intervention Order. These types of disputes open up a Can of worms that nobody seems to be able to adequately explain.