No Credibility in Victorian Courts

  
 

The Credibility in Victoria's Legal System no longer exists after a decision handed down in a Victorian Court This Week. A magistrate with 24 years experience pleaded guilty to assault and intentionally causing damage to a neighbor's Range Rover. A series of Incidents over Dog Droppings Included the Magistrate challenging his neighbor to get out of his Vehicle. After which the Magistrate threw a punch through the window which was blocked by the male driver and After charges were laid by Police the Magistrate went to the Victims home and deliberately scratched the Victims car as payback.

The Magistrate's Defence Counsel said the Magistrate was suffering delayed onset grief over his mother who died 34 years ago in 1975!!!!. Surely they can't be serious at using this excuse, which is totally ridiculous. The Victorian Magistrate was only sentenced to a 2 Year Good Behavior Bond; you would have to say that the Magistrate received the Sentence because of who he was rather than what he had done. This is a Common Occurrence in The Legal System, if you happen to be a Sports Star, Television Personality or a High Profile Businessman you will receive a Lenient Sentence compared to a member of the General Public and this is what happened with the Victorian Magistrate's Sentence.

The Court's decisions are not based on evidence relating to what has occurred, it is related to who you are and what your Status happens to be in Society.

A Judicial Idiocracy in Victoria

The Court System in Victoria has become an Idiocracy, which defies comprehension. A Babysitter who bashed and sexually abused toddlers is free to live unsupervised in the Community despite warning she would kill a baby. A County Court Judge fears she will reoffend but ruled her identity will remain a secret. Both Police and Prison Authorities fear she could Kill children. A Psychologist has previously advised that the woman was a danger to children and should not be allowed near them and experts have rated her a high risk of reoffending, inexplicably the County Court Judge did not place her on an Extended Supervision order even though he was reasonably satisfied the woman would commit another crime against Children. The Judge also said supervision orders take away the Liberty of a person and should only be made if the risk of offending is high.

In Another case in Victoria, Judge Sue Pullen issued a suppression order on a child rapist that stopped a newspaper from publishing his Name, identity, photograph or drawing. The Judge found it wasn't in the Public's interest that the man's details be published despite the fact the Child Rapist had disappeared for nearly 2 days. That's a photograph capable of identifying him the Judge said. County Court Judge Pullen's interpretation of the law differs from that of Supreme Court Judge Justice Phillip Cummins.

 Last October in a Similar case Justice Cummins refused to suppress the name of a "sex Witch", Justice Cummins said in my view the public interest clearly is in favour of open process, in a case such as this or other like cases where the community is entitled to know what the courts are doing in relation to offenders.In his retirement speech Justice Cummins also said, the Courts had fallen short on sentence in cases involving Sex offences, violence and especially domestic Violence. I think that sentences imposed should reflect parliamentary provision and community values.

Intervention Orders Jerry Springer style

Anybody that's been to a Victorian Magistrate's court on a day when Intervention Order's are Being Heard would sometimes think they had come to a taping of the Jerry Springer show. Some of the Childish disputes that result in an intervention order application are Unbelievable and you wonder how ridiculous they would have to be before the Court Rejects the application.

No one would argue that people, particularly women and Children should be protected from Physical Violence, but the courts have taken a Jerry Springer Style approach to how and why they issue Intervention Orders. It doesn't matter how trivial, ridiculous or crazy the dispute is, the courts will issue an Intervention Order regardless of the circumstances.

Some so called "experts" claim there is no hard evidence of the misuse of the legislation. Indeed, they suggest the "evidence" supports the opposite view. These "experts" allege aggrieved persons have often been through a 'filtering process' in the community, as police, outreach workers, refuge workers, and the court clerk or Registrar have all assessed and supported her need for an order before she comes before a magistrate. Believe me, this is simply not true.

These supposed reports also suggest there is a continued circulation of myths about women using the legislation to be vindictive, or to gain advantage for family law or immigration purposes. My experiences would suggest that people use intervention Orders simply to be vindictive, gain advantage and they are not necessarily used for protection against physical Violence or property damage. There are certainly women who need protection from family Violence, but there is also a lot of Hysteria being generated using unfounded Propaganda to unnecessarily persecute non Violent People, particularly men.

The Courts have taken an open slather approach to Intervention orders, at one end of the scale you have Violent and abusive offenders who are not stopped by either Police or by the Courts issuing an Intervention Order and at the other end of the scale are intervention orders that are issued for any reason imaginable and are tossed about like confetti at a wedding, for some unexplained reason these are not included in the so-called "expert" reports. Here are some examples.

A woman was granted an intervention Order against her son that stopped him coming within 200 Metres of her Home. The real reason the woman applied for the order was because she didn't approve of her son going out with the woman who lived next door to her. Should a mother be able to issue an intervention order and make her son a Potential Criminal because he chooses to go out with a woman his mother disapproves of who just happens to live next door to her???.


At the same court, a Woman issued an interim Order against her ex-husband because she had found out that he was about to be married in 3 Weeks, so she went to the court and made a complaint against him which can only be described as Vindictive. The husband said his Ex-Wife's actions were ridiculous and it was pointless obtaining an Intervention Order because he had no wish to be in contact with her at all and he had a new woman in his life and was about to start a new life.

Another woman was granted an Intervention order because she fed stray and feral cats at the rear of a shopping Centre (Pictured Left). The Woman's Plastic feed containers were going missing and she issued an Intervention Order against the person she believed was taking her cat feeding containers. This made it a crime for the defendant to shop at that shopping Centre. The real reason the woman sought an Intervention order was to stop the "defendant" driving down her street to attend a gym he had been a member of for 11 years. The order was used as a Virtual roadblock because the woman said the defendant was going into "her Area". The same woman applied for another Intervention order and agreed to an order of just 3 Metres. How ridiculous and Pointless can it get???. If Plastic Bowls used to feed the stray cats were put in front of the Magistrates Court Building would they issue an Intervention Order if somebody complained that the bowls were being removed???. Realistically I don't think they would.

In court an elderly woman issued an interim intervention order against another elderly woman who lived at their retirement Village. The AFM told the Magistrate that she wanted the defendant restricted from going past her unit from 4 Times a day to twice a day. The defendant told the Magistrate that she was only going past to visit other residents of the Retirement Village. The Elderly female defendant had a final Intervention Order issued against her to last for 12 months, which stated that she had to walk on paths that were 20 metres either side of the AFM's Unit. She would be in breech of the order if she came within 20 metres. Should we potentially put elderly women in Prison for breeching such ridiculous Intervention orders like This???.

A father wanted his 25 year old daughter to move out into a place of her own, but the daughter didn't want to move, so she went to the Court and got an interim Intervention order issued against her Father. In Court the father told the magistrate that this was a frivolous Intervention Order. The Magistrate replied that in his opinion there were no Frivolous intervention orders issued at this court. Should a father become a potential criminal because he wants his daughter to live somewhere else???.

At the same Court there was an interim intervention order issued against a neighbor because they were taking photos of Trucks on the Property next Door. Legal representation had cost the defendant a lot of money, the so called AFM Withdrew their order, but it was revealed in court that the defendant had been taking photos as advised by VCAT, because his neighbor was suspected of running an inappropriate business from the property next door. The magistrate still didn't think this was a frivolous application for an intervention order, but he described it as being "Not in Good Faith".

The oddest case I have seen was over the pruning of trees, which took an hour of court Time. Photos were passed between the Magistrate and the defendant with the Magistrate describing to the defendant, how the trees needed to be pruned, in the end the Magistrate then told The defendant he took breeches of undertakings seriously and if the trees weren't pruned within 3 weeks, the intervention orders would be reinstated and the Police could then become involved in this dispute.
What I worry about is the Priorities that Magistrate's have in Their Decisions. The Same Magistrate who took an Hour and a half to hear the Tree Pruning case, has been contacted by a homeowner, after the Magistrate sentenced a driver who was over the Legal Alcohol Limit and crashed in to the Homeowner's house was given a Four Month Suspended sentence after doing $100,000 damage to The House.

The most bizarre Intervention Order case was against a man who had very little sight and only one arm and he also had a prosthetic Leg, which was as a result of a car accident. His wife had very little sight and needed a seeing eye dog, but she had an Intervention Order issued against her husband and he was removed from the home that was modified to suit his disabilities. He was not allowed to approach his Children at their school and you wonder how he could actually do this because of his physical condition, he needed the help of a carer who looked after him for 13 hours a day. Have the laws become so ridiculous that people with Severe Disabilities can be put in Jail because people issue intervention Orders against them???. At the same court a disabled man confined to a wheelchair had a Final Intervention Order issued against him for a period of 12 Months???.

In Court a defendant applied to have an Intervention Order Revoked that had only been granted a few weeks earlier because of an application made by Police. There was already an Intervention Order in place that applied to the Couple, surely the police should have checked before applying to the court for a second Intervention Order??.The applicant who was the Partner of the Defendant, agreed to the second order being revoked. When the Magistrate revoked the order, the female applicant immediately hugged the defendant and gave him a passionate Kiss on the Lips in front of the Magistrate. In her excitement the applicant almost tripped over the defendant, they were last seen walking hand in hand at the Shopping Centre opposite the court. There are some very odd things that happen in regards to Intervention Order cases.

This Story about intervention Orders was in the Newspapers.

An engaged couple, soon to be married, have been slapped with an intervention order which bans them from being within 200 metres of each other and extends beyond their wedding day. Apparently police were called to a house in Melbourne's northern suburbs after the couple started fighting when they arrived home from their respective buck's and hen's nights. Sounds like a scene from a sitcom but it's believed the groom confronted his fiancée thinking she was an intruder and in taking defensive action she landed a whack that will live on in his memory. Victoria's new domestic violence laws require police to be "proactive" in taking out intervention orders. A police spokesman confirmed an order had been taken out and covered the wedding date.

I wonder, if they ignore the order, if they'll be charged with Breeching the order? Have an energetic argument with your other half and if a nosy neighbor takes exception and calls the cops, you could be forcibly separated. I wonder how many Victorians realize this. Could you imagine a wedding Ceremony where the Bride and Groom have to stand 200 Metres apart????. When the minister says you may now kiss the Bride, do they say sorry we can't do that because we could face 2 years in jail or a $24,000 fine for an Intervention Order Neither of them applied for!!!!!.

Do we need to use Intervention Orders in cases Like This???.In one case a person took out intervention orders against 3 of his neighbors. The applicant said he was the victim of Verbal abuse, threats, trespass and this dispute with the neighbors was because of a decision made by the council on the location of the collection spot for rubbish bins. The location became the basis for the dispute. The Police advised the applicant to take out stalking intervention Orders against his Neighbors. The three applications were heard for 2 days in the Magistrates Court, two applications were refused and the third was struck out. Sounds like a load of garbage to me; even frustration was expressed by Court personnel because they had to type up this rubbish. This certainly sounds like a Jerry Springer Style Intervention order to me.

An "AFM" came before the courts to extend an intervention order; the police could not serve the court documents on the defendant because they could not locate the defendant. The magistrate asked the AFM if there had been any breeches of the order, he replied that the defendant had breached the order on a number of occasions, but the Police did not charge him for the Breach. The magistrate asked what breaches had taken place.

Well the AFM said, he comes around to our place because he doesn't have any friends, sometimes he knocks on the door, other times he walks straight in, he goes to the fridge and drinks our beer, we can't get rid of him and we ring the Police sometimes at 2AM in the morning. The Police arrive, but don't charge him with a breech of the intervention order, they simply take him home. Unbelievably, the Magistrate adjourned the matter until after Police had served court documents on the defendant.

In another case an applicant wanted to extend an Intervention Order even though she had no contact with the defendant in over 4 Years. The reason given on the statement of complaint was she was now getting hanged up Phone calls. When questioned by the Magistrate, the applicant said she had not reported these "So Called Breeches" to the Police, because she didn't know whether the calls were made by the defendant or the Indians, the Indians meaning overseas tele-marketers. When asked by the Defendant whether the hang-up phone calls had been traced by Telstra, the applicant again said, she didn't know whether it was the defendant or the Indians.

When asked whether she had written down the times and dates of the calls, she said she had left that information at home on the Kitchen Table. Even though there had been no contact with the defendant in over 4 Years and no evidence to support the continuation of the Intervention Order. The magistrate still wanted the defendant to agree to an undertaking, the defendant declined because he said there was no logical Reason or evidence for an undertaking to be agreed upon. The Magistrate still issued a stalking Order to last for another 12 Months. Why orders like this are issued makes no sense whatsoever, how can you possibly stalk somebody you have not seen in 4 years? It just doesn't make sense, the defendant may have to attend court in another 12 months and go through another ridiculous court hearing.

In this case the applicant was the best friend of the defendant's ex-in-laws, the defendant had been a member of the local gym for nearly 11 years, but when the ex-in-laws issued Intervention Orders, the defendant could no longer drive down streets to the Gym without technically breeching the Orders. In addition the ex-in-laws believed that the defendant was breeching the order by being in the Gym complex, because they said one end of the 50 metre Indoor swimming Pool was within 200 metres of their back fence. Does this mean the defendant is breeching the Intervention Order by swimming a 50 Metre Lap, even though the So called AFM is not actually in the Gym Complex????. You may be breeching an Intervention Order even when you are face down doing laps in a Swimming Pool!!!!. A County Court Judge said this would be a technical Breech of the Order. When the Local Policeman was asked in the Court Where Intervention Order exclusion distances were measured from. The Police officer said, From the Front gate Post I Suppose. So under the Police Officers Interpretation of the law, One end of the swimming Pool wasn't within 200 Metres. The Judge then said, in my court it is measured from the Properties Boundaries.

The applicant only used the gym to swim in the early mornings but his ex-in-laws rang the police anytime the defendant used the gym, claiming the defendant was breeching the order by being in the Gym, even when they weren't there. The defendant applied for a variation to continue using the Gym to do Aerobics. The Variation was denied and the magistrate said this.

The Leisurecentre is in fact within 200 metres, At least in part. Had the evidence been that you see them at the leisurecentre and leave immediately, then I might have made a different decision, but the fact is you see them and you don't leave. They end up leaving. Now there the ones who have taken out the orders against you. They are not subject to orders. There is nothing that prevents them coming up to you and speaking to you, but you must not approach them. If they speak to you, you ought not be speaking to them, because they won't go to jail for speaking to you, but you will Go to jail if it can be construed that you have approached them, or that you have had a conversation which has preceded to develop into any behavior that could be called harassing or intimidating to them.

Maybe the Magistrate Should read page 24 of the Book, responding to Intervention Orders, under the heading 'What does no contact mean" it says this. No Contact means no contact with the other person. It also means that the other person with the intervention order should not contact you. If the other person contacts you this could put them in Breech of the Order. So which interpretation is Right???. This illustrates the confusion that surrounds the interpretation of Intervention Orders in Victoria even by Magistrates and Police.

As the Magistrate points out, the applicants aren't subject to orders. They won't go to Jail for speaking to the defendant and even though the defendant has now signed up as a member at a different Gym. He was advised by the Magistrate's Court that if the AFM walks into the New Gym he is now a member of, he is still breaching the order if he doesn't leave the New Gym immediately. Once again Court staff has made a different Interpretation to what is printed in the Intervention Order handbooks available from the Court. Are AFM's able to go anywhere they please, because they are not subject to the Intervention Order, is the defendant in breech if they don't immediately leave, even in public places???, Like Gym's. Hotels and shopping Centre's. A police officer I spoke with said he didn't think Intervention orders applied in Public Places.

The defendant has not seen the applicants in over 5 years and has sought to have the orders revoked, but he was told by a Magistrate that even though he has had no contact in 5 years, that does not constitute changed Circumstances, it simply means the defendant is complying with the order. The Magistrate would not explain or give examples of what constitutes Changed Circumstances and there is no information to define what it means. It is a legal term that nobody can explain!!!.

The defendant was charged in this case for breeching the Intervention order for driving down the street to the gym, something he had done on over 4000 occasions during his membership at the Gym. He was also charged for going into a large Supermarket in a large Suburban Shopping Centre (Pictured Left) at Noon on a Saturday, because one of his ex-in-laws worked there at night as a Supermarket shelf Restocker. The AFM was not in the supermarket on Saturday Mornings but the defendant was still charged with going to the AFM's Place of Work. The charge sheet said the applicant felt he was being harassed and intimated by the defendant using the Supermarket, how this is possible when the "AFM" is not actually in the Supermarket is a complete mystery, the defendant had only used that Supermarket once because he was in a hurry and didn't want to drive to another Supermarket simply to get a few groceries.

At the same Magistrates Court, a woman applied for a variation to an Intervention Order to exclude a defendant from being at a Basketball Stadium. The Magistrate explained to the women that a variation to include the Basketball Stadium was not needed as he thought that the Standard wording of an Intervention Order was sufficient, which he stated stopped the defendant from harassing and intimidating her.

If an intervention order is not specific when it comes to public places, it then creates grey areas and confusion in the law depending on how the order is interpreted by the Police, which may not be the way the defendant, interprets the situation. The Book Responding to Intervention Orders says, it is no excuse to breach an order without meaning to. How is the defendant supposed to know when Magistrates, Court staff and Intervention Order Handbooks give different interpretations of the law? You may be in breach of an order, depending on an individual's interpretation.

These types of ridiculous orders are issued in our court systems on a regular basis, a High Profile Sportsman and his family issued Intervention Orders against each other over a dispute about a 4 year olds Birthday Party. In another High Profile Domestic Case, the lawyer described the situation as something out of the Bold and The Beautiful. The Prosecutor described the ex-wife as just not credible. The Ex Husband was accused of lying on oath. In the end the wife was found not guilty of assaulting, forcefully imprisoning and threatening to shoot and stab her husband.

Our courts deal with these Jerry Springer Style disputes in the same way as Genuine Applicants, who are in real and significant danger from Physical Violence. Magistrates and Registrars don't seem to care as long as they keep churning out these types of Ridiculous and Mindless Orders, the courts need to take a more logical and professional approach in how they deal with these matters, so that genuine cases of Family violence are adequately dealt with. At the moment the way the process is handled anybody from a check out girl to a Factory Worker could do the job the Magistrates do, all they want to do is get the defendant to consent to the order without admission, they then explain the ramifications of the order to the defendant then quickly move on to the next case, and then repeat the same process over and over again. It's a very simplistic approach that the Magistrates Courts take when they hear Intervention order cases.

In an interview back in 2002, Rob Hulls the Attorney General of Victoria said this. It appears that more and more people are attempting to use intervention orders in a range of new situations – disputes between neighbors, between friends and acquaintances, disputes of a commercial nature, workplace conflicts, shared accommodation conflicts. People believe that the only way to resolve disputes is through the courts. I mean, that's nonsense, and particularly with many of these neighborhood disputes, the best way to resolve these matters is through mediation, alternative dispute resolution, its clear the Crimes Act needs to be reviewed to prevent more people from heading to the courts at the first hint of conflict. There are much better, simpler ways of resolving these disputes, and the court's time is far better spent dealing with more serious matters. It may be 7 Years since Mr. Hulls made these comments, but nothing has changed and Magistrates simply want defendants to Consent to these Orders without admission simply to speed up the Court Process, this even happens in Cases that Mr. Hulls would describe as nonsense.

Its difficult to understand why Mr. Hulls would also say complaints for intervention orders relating to family violence in the five years to 2002/2003 remained constant with around 15,000 complaints made in Victoria each year."That's 15,000 Victorian families who experience violence and the heartbreaking affects of violence in the home. In one statement he says that Intervention Orders are being used in a range of new situations, then he says they're 15,000 violent complaints, maybe Rob Hulls should check that he has been handed contradictory Scripts before making ill informed statements. Rob Hulls Should provide accurate facts not propaganda. These inaccuracies come about because of the Major Flaw in the Legislation, Both Civil Disputes and Family Violence cases are handled by the same Family law Registrars and appear before the same Magistrate and are issued the same Intervention Orders.

We have seen the destruction and Tragic loss of life during the Victorian Bushfires. Once again the Courts do not have their priorities right, in earlier cases a firebug dealt with by Victorian courts who lit 10 fires in the Mt Disappointment State Forest received a two-year community-based order. The fires that ravaged Kinglake West and surrounding areas are believed to have spread from Mt Disappointment after the wind direction changed. In another case, a man who started eight fires along the Bellarine Peninsula walked free from court with a suspended sentence. There is no doubt these People are more of a danger to our community than some of the people who have Intervention Orders issued against them.


 It is no wonder 26.686 Intervention orders were issued in 2007/2008 in Victoria. The Main reason for these statistics and the bias within the courts is the Family Violence and family law Portfolio Committee in Victoria is overwhelmingly made up of female Magistrates, with only one Man, Magistrate Graham Keil. This highlights why family law and Intervention Order decisions have become increasingly gender based, and have become heavily weighted in favor of Women. Unfortunately the whole process fails to stop Violence against women with tragic results.

One of the responsibilities of the Committee is to respond to issues that impact on the Committee as they arise, for example, respond to the inadequate content of some Intervention Order complaints. Are they Kidding!!!. When you look at some of the Ridiculous Intervention Orders that come before the Courts there doesn't appear to be any scrutiny at all. It's much easier to get the defendant to consent to the Order without admission, then get the over stretched Police Force to handle the rest.

When will the Courts be able to differentiate between Petty Civil Disputes and People who have a long and Violent History and continue to threaten and abuse Innocent people within our society? Don't hold you're Breath for the Intervention Order system to improve, nor will there be an improvement in sentencing for Violent Offenders in this State.

The Crazy world of Intervention Orders

Intervention Orders were originally designed to protect Women from being assaulted by their husbands and Partners, but overtime there has been a large increase in the Misuse of Intervention Orders for other reasons. With the Current Legislation they can be used in any type of Civil Dispute, even if there has been no Violence.

In a report it says hundreds of these orders are even being obtained in The Children's Court as students take legal action to settle differences, in some cases teachers are forced to keep students at least 200 Metres apart, even though they go to the same school. Principals have complained that they have become virtual wardens to enforce the Courts Rulings. A teenager took out an order against another student who spread rumors about her on Myspace.

A principal contacted the Children's Court asking them not to issue an Intervention order as it was totally impractical in a school environment. An Opposition Education spokesman said Common Sense not Intervention Orders should be used in these Disputes. What an understatement!!!. I have seen Parents granted an Intervention against their 13 Year Old Son. Should Intervention Orders be used as a Parental tool to make your Children Behave????.

So Instead of being used to protect women and Children in Family Violence cases, the Courts have taken an Open Slather Approach to the Intervention Orders they issue, which means those people who are at risk of Violence are not protected because of the overuse of Intervention Orders.

In One Case a woman who owned and was living in a house was having disputes with the Female Boarder who was living with her. The Female owner left her house on a holiday to visit friends for a couple of weeks. The Boarder then issued an interim intervention order against the owner, which meant that the owner could not come within 200 metres of her own home. The Interim Order was served on the owner at her friend's home. When the matter came before the court, the defendant who was the owner of the house told the Magistrate that she wanted to live back in her own home. She was told by the Magistrate that the Boarder had a legal right to be living in her home because she was paying rent to her.

The owner was then told by the magistrate she would have to wait to get back into her home until after a contested hearing was heard by the court, which would be at a later date, a number of weeks away. She would have to pay for alternative accommodation until then. Even if you own the Property, the court can still force you to leave your own home, or in this case stay away from it. Should a boarder have more "Legal" rights to live in a home than the owner of the Property, simply because they have gone to a court to get an interim Intervention Order issued?

This type of dispute which has nothing at all to do with Family Violence then raises the question of a Persons Civil Liberties in Regard to the Misuse of Intervention orders. The Owner of the house surely had more of a right to live in her own home than the Boarder??.

In another case a woman had an intervention order taken out that stopped her husband drinking beer in his own Home.

Even a Victorian Magistrate has had an Intervention Order issued against Him; His Neighbours have accused him of Stalking and harassing them and say they are in constant fear after an alleged barrage of Intimidation and Offensive Language. The Magistrate has also been accused of baiting his neighbours dog with a poisoned Pie. They also claim the Magistrate began yelling profusely and Swearing Offensively when they asked him about the dog bait. It is alleged he hit a man and threatened to throw Dog Excrement at him. It is also alleged The Magistrate did $10,000 worth of damage to a Range Rover's Paintwork. A charge of Criminal damage was also laid against the Victorian Magistrate. The Magistrate has pleaded guilty to the assault and property Damage Charge.

If Magistrates are having Intervention Orders issued against them based on serious allegations, then what sort of an Example does it set for the Victorian Public??

With The Ridiculous laws we have in Victoria, a person may not have harmed anybody and have no criminal intent whatsoever, but that does not stop an intervention order being issued against you. In another case that went before a Victorian Court, there was a dispute between neighbours regarding the pruning of trees, the magistrate described to the defendant how he thought the trees should be pruned, Photos of the trees were passed between the defendant and the Magistrate, in the end the Magistrate told the defendant that he Took Breaches of Undertakings Seriously and if he didn't prune the trees within 3 Weeks the Intervention orders would be issued and the police would then become involved, this case took an hour and thirty Minutes of Court Time. This is how farcical the intervention order process has become in Victoria; it was like an episode of Jerry Springer.

In 2009 Rugby League Star Greg Bird won an appeal against his reckless wounding conviction. In June Greg was sentenced to a minimum of 8 Months Jail with a maximum of 16 Months after a domestic Argument. At The appeal held at Sydney's Downing Centre District Court, Greg Bird's Girlfriend told Judge Michael Finnane that she was drunk and had been snorting her ADHD drugs "Like Cocaine" when she arrived at the flat and had begun punching and Scratching Bird. I had been "Quite Irrational" and in an agitated state and had begun smashing things and ripping up Photo's, I was just trying to get a reaction, i was going crazy, I lunged at Greg with a glass. Judge Finnane said Greg Bird did not Strike His Girlfriend or Shout at Her, what he did was grab his girlfriend's Wrists as she was attempting to thrust the glass into his face, grabbing a wrist is in no sense a hostile act, her wrist was forced back and the glass smashed against her face, it was a case of self defence. Outside court Greg Bird and his girlfriend said they were relieved about the Court's Decision.

The Problem is an innocent man could have gone to jail for at least 8 Months or a maximum period of 16 Months, Simply because he was a Male Sports Star. In Western Australia John Button Spent a Number of years in Jail despite the Fact Serial Killer Eric Edgar Cook Confessed to the Murder of Mr Button's Girlfriend Rosemary Anderson.

Our Crazy Legal System

Once again we have suggestions that there be Radical Changes made to Family law, despite the fact that it is only about 12 months since the last changes were made to the Laws. Chief Justice Diana Bryant has said changes should be made to provide more protection to family members at risk of Violence. The suggestion is information from confidential mediation sessions should be made available to the courts if it is believed there is a risk to a child or parents safety. The Information could include evidence of Violence, and alcohol and Drug abuse. Caroline Counsel, President Elect of the Victorian Law institute has backed the idea and said courts should not be "Blind Sided" by insufficient Evidence. It is ultimately charged with the duty of making orders in the best interests of Children.

If this is what the courts are trying to achieve, then why is Victoria issuing Suppression orders in relation to Child Sex Offenders who have been released back into Society after release from Prison. I agree that Laws should be used to protect People within our society, but they are being used for the Wrong Reasons.  The issuing of Suppression orders in these Sexual Offences cases are potentially putting Children at Risk, which goes against what the Judicial Systems was designed to do, the Courts should take an Open Justice Approach, but instead we are protecting criminals from being named

Broadcaster Derryn Hinch has been before our courts because he has publicly named Child Sex Offenders and as a result he has been charged with Breaching Suppression Orders issued by the Courts. If the chief Justice Diana Bryant is really serious about protecting children then she should also look at how suppression orders are being misused in Victoria.

The family law Act is constantly changing to make the laws even more draconian against fathers, but you have to ask yourself  does The Legal system  have is it's Priorities Right, when it comes to the protection of Children???.

A report into the Deaths of Seven young children reveals some very disturbing Information. A 15 week old baby suffered 3 Skull fractures as well as a fracture to the leg. The Murder Charge against the Father was thrown out due to Lack of Evidence.

Another baby only 14 Months old, died after being admitted to Hospital with severe brain injuries. The Mother's Boyfriend was found not guilty and acquitted of Manslaughter despite the Mother Giving Evidence that her Boyfriend slapped the baby around the head if it cried.

A 12 Months old baby died and an autopsy found the baby's injuries were not accident. Detective's questioned the Mother and Her Boyfriend but nobody was charged with the baby's Death.

A 2 year old Toddler disappeared while in the care of a baby sitter, despite the fact the Toddler's remains were found under a house, nobody has been charged with the Child's Death.

In a high Profile case a 13 month old baby disappeared after being looked after by the Mother's Boyfriend, The Child's body was found Dumped in a Dam. The Boyfriend was Acquitted of Murder.

A five Year old Girl, died as a result of Head Injuries sustained when she hit the floor after her Mother Lost her Grip while shaking her. On a previous occasion the Child had told Child Protection Workers that her Mother's De Facto had caused a horrendous Bruise to Her Face. The Child's Mother received a 3 Month good Behavior Bond.

A 23 Month old Child lost consciousness while in the care of her Mother and Her Boyfriend. An Ambulance was called and Doctors called Police after they found suspicious injuries to the Child's Head. The De Facto blamed the Injuries on a dog Attack, but police believe a dog was not involved. Nobody has been charged over the Child's Death.

Police, Prosecutors and Social Workers said they were seeing more incidents of infants killed by men who live with the mother of the Children. A spokeswoman For a Child Protection Charity said she has worked with Mother's who have been complicit in their Children's Death, there are women who have colluded and protected abusive partners at the expense of their Child's Safety.

A Melbourne Detective has said, Mothers who refuse to put their Dead Son Or Daughter above their current Boyfriend Are Criminal Accessories and not battered Women. Imagine what it would be like if you were a father who was denied access to your children by the family Court, only to find that your child died at the hand's of your ex-wife's Boyfriend or De Facto. It would Be Devastating.

Another High Profile case that has come before Victorian Courts is a woman who gave her 5 Year old Child, Grappa. When the child was taken to hospital the Child's Blood Alcohol Reading was .09. Despite the fact the Mother already had 2 Suspended Sentences, the magistrate said there were "Exceptional Circumstances" and the Mother received another Suspended Sentence.

In another case in Melbourne a woman called her brother and New Boyfriend to come and help her because her ex boyfriend came to her home, they came armed with a Baseball Bat and a knife, the Brother and the New Boyfriend were charged with Manslaughter and sentenced to 6 Years Jail because the Ex Boyfriend was deceased because of the physical confrontation.


Family Violence Legislation is probably varied more than any other by our Governments, but no matter how Draconian you make the laws or how much Intervention orders the Courts issue, if somebody is determined to harm or murder you, the only real protection you have is self Protection. Police cannot protect you 24 hours a day nor can you rely on an immediate response to your call for help to Police unless you're extremely lucky. Victims often don't even get a chance to call the Police for help.

Politicians like Rob Hulls the Victorian Attorney General may promote campaigns that say, Family Violence, Victoria has had enough, but Political Rhetoric just doesn't work. Physically you need to have a plan to protect yourself; otherwise the result of not doing this could have very tragic consequences. You can go to a Magistrate's Court and get an Intervention Order but it certainly does not guarantee your safety, it is only paper thin Protection. So what do you do, ring the Police and hope they will eventually arrive. A taxi driver was attacked in Melbourne and it took the Police an hour to respond.  

What has made it worse for Victims of family Violence is our Court system is snow-balling out of Control and Churning out Intervention Orders in record time. I have seen a Mother of 66 also being taken to Court by her son; she had never been in Court before in her Life. There is no age limits on Intervention Orders and they can be taken out for any reason.

The Victorian Government may be embarking on a 1.5 Million Dollar Smoke and Mirror's Campaign, but unless Rob Hulls does something about Police Response time then his legislation will be Nothing More than a Witless Protection Scheme. Police resources are already being used to curb Drunken Violence on Melbourne Streets, but maybe a better answer would be to restrict the Hours of Hotels and Strip Clubs to stop the problem where it begins rather than putting the responsibility back on to our over stretched Police Force.

Action taken by Police may stop the Violence on city Streets but this has led to an increase in intervention orders taken out by parents against their alcohol and drug affected children. Statement of complaints includes Children banging on Doors and windows wanting to be let into the house by their parents. Some Parents have also taken out Intervention Orders against their sons and daughters because they can no longer have them living with them because of the Drug and Alcohol abuse in their home.

The Premier of Victoria says he is concerned about the emerging culture of Alcohol and a lack of respect. His plan is to restore respect through the Schools. I think The Premier is very misguided if he thinks this is going to solve the states Alcohol and Violence Problem, if Parents can't stop their children banging on Doors and Windows, how does he expect School Teachers to solve the Problem!!!!. Both John Brumby and Rob Hulls need to step Back and Think!!!!.

The Courts have become clogged by unnecessary and Trivial Jerry Springer Style Civil Disputes in Relation to Intervention orders. Many people are attending Court as defendants who have never been Violent in Their Lives. These types of unnecessary Complaints need to be stopped. The Government is aware of these problems but does nothing to get the Courts Priorities Right. The system in Victoria has become an Idiocracy and can't live up to the Rhetoric expressed by Police and Politicians. Victims should prepare for the Worst so they can better prepare themselves against Family Violence, relying on Police and Intervention orders to protect you is very risky and could lead to very tragic consequences. Magistrates don't want to reveal the actual truth to applicants in their courts. It would show how unrealistic the system actually is.

A woman in New South Wales felt relieved when the Courts issued an AVO against her estranged husband, tragically she came home to find her Father and two young Children had been murdered by her estranged husband before he committed Suicide.

Victorian Family Court Bias – Exposed.

Anybody who has been before the Family Court in Victoria would realize how Biased the court is against Father's and Men In General. In A Recent case in the family court a mother who has been found to be Violent, untruthful and lacking Moral values has been granted custody of her children, despite the fact the father has been deemed principled and having much to offer his Children. The Father has been banned from seeing his daughters even though the Family Court Judge has described the Father as intelligent and Courteous and no threat to his Daughters. The judge has also described the Mother as displaying cruel and malicious behavior.

Despite this the judge said, it is a sad fact in the family law Jurisdiction that a determination can appear to reward bad behavior by one parent at the expense of a well motivated and best performing parent. The father has not seen his daughters as a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife. The allegations were found to be totally false by a trial judge. It is obvious the family law system needs changing because it seems that lies and allegations are immediately accepted as fact, which doesn't happen in any other Court except the Family Court. A family court critic says mothers who make false allegations to keep children to themselves should lose the right to be chief carer for the Children.

Of 207 family court cases in 2009, 24 included allegations of sexual abuse against the children. The allegations in 23 of these cases were found to be false, and in the other case the allegations were undetermined. A Latrobe university professor has said, in a normal court a woman found guilty of a serious crime would be sent to jail, but in the family court a mother has a license to destroy a father's reputation by false accusations and then have the court deny the innocent father access to his Children, and the mother escapes scot free.

The father has decided to take civil action in the Victorian Courts against his Ex-wife because he feels he has been betrayed by the "Justice System". The Family Court has cut me off from my children because of false evidence made by my ex-wife. I have proved my innocence, if people can lie in Court and hurt others by making false accusations, what is the point of the Law?.

In another case a woman has had her 4 children returned to her on 4 Occasions by Victorian Courts, despite the fact the children have been described as Mal Nourished, neglected and developmentally delayed. 2 of the children have barely attended school in the last 2 years and rarely leave the House. At one point, one of the children almost died after swallowing his mother's Drug stash. Police, Neighbors and other family members fear for the children's future if they remain with their Mother, but the department of Human Services default position is that Children should stay with their Mother. The "family home" is described as filthy and full of Rubbish and Needles because the Mother has a heroin Dependence. The Mother certainly has a drug habit, but is definitely no Mother Teresa. Relatives can't understand the Department and the Courts thinking, despite the children being in Danger. The Victorian Authorities have known about this situation for 10 Years!!!!.

It is Obvious the family Court has a serious bias towards mothers at the expense of the fathers and Men in General.

The Australian Federal Government is Considering Changes to the law that could make it even harder for Fathers to secure a 50-50 Custody agreement with theie Ex-wives. The Changes would also make it easier for women to raise concerns about Violence, or should we say allegations of Violence.

Lone Father's association President Barry Williams says the law changes are "Feminism Gone Mad". Which automatically favour the wishes of Mother's, he also says many children suffer because they are denied contact with their father's.Allegations of Violence should be proven in court before a parent loses access to their children. In The past many father's have lost access because of False allegations.

In a recent radio Interview Ex Victorian Politician Theo Theophanus said changes that he helped to bring before the Victorian Government has made it easier for women to make False allegations. Theo Theophanus was also the Victim of False allegations that ruined his Political Career.


Also In Victoria, Suppression orders are being made by the Courts to Suppress the names and whereabouts of Convicted Sex offenders, who have been released back into the Community.

It is wrong that our Courts are being used to protect the "civil rights" of these perverts at the Possible expense of Women and Children. It makes a mockery of our " Justice System". It is farcical that  family law can appear to reward bad behavior by one parent at the expense of a well motivated and best performing parent and then put the welfare and safety of Children at Risk, by issuing Suppression Orders to conceal the name of Sex offenders in Our Society.

The Family Court of Australia has now made it extremely easy to obtain a divorce; all you need to do is apply online with a click of a mouse. This New E-Divorce Process has created a surge in Divorce applications, 800 people applying in less than 9 weeks!!!!. The Australian Family association has called for the Australian Government to Ditch this Service. A Family Law courts Executive has defended the System, saying the aim was to improve access to "Justice"!!!.