Let’s Talk About… Domestic Violence Orders in QLD.
This piece is intended to inspire thought about our systems and how they are serving our society. We shouldn’t just accept what is in place but aim to constantly improve.
No one deserves to be killed by the hands of someone they loved.
A Domestic Violence Order (DVO) is a civil order made by a Magistrate with the aim of protecting a victim of domestic violence from future harm from an alleged perpetrator. There are currently two types of Domestic Violence Orders in Queensland: Temporary Protection Order (TPO) or a DVO. The temporary order is for cases where an Aggrieved (the alleged victim) could be in immediate danger from the Respondent (the alleged perpetrator). When a new order is made it is recorded in Interlinked Courts (QWIC) system. ‘There is no link in the system between criminal matters and applications for DV orders. There is also no ‘single person identifier’ in QWIC, therefore history of offending is not available.’
A victim of domestic violence, the police or someone on the victim’s behalf can apply for a DVO. In the 12-page application form you will be asked to supply any proof of the abuse. When an order is received by the court, a court date is set where the Aggrieved and the Respondent are ordered to attend. It can take up to 4 weeks. The first hearing will be a mention hearing where an order can be made official by the Magistrate if the Respondent and the Aggrieved agree to the order. If no agreement is reached, a further hearing will be set to hear the evidence of both parties. Court can be extremely distressing for the victim as they must be in the court room with the alleged perpetrator who is usually someone they are terrified of. The process seemingly disregards the emotional and psychological stress of the Aggrieved whilst potentially inflaming the anger of the Respondent, further endangering the Aggrieved and their family.
When an order is issued, it will always include for the Respondent “to be of good behaviour and not commit domestic violence against the Aggrieved.” (Queensland Courts, 2023)
It can also include several orders such as no contact, to remain a certain distance of the Aggrieved and/or the family, or an ouster condition, whereby the Respondent is ordered to leave a residence. Any weapons licences are usually either suspended or cancelled.
As a DVO is a civil order, it will not be recorded on the Respondent’s criminal history.
I have gathered the data of the financial year 2022-2023 and the statistics are as follows:
• 58,314 DVOs were made in Queensland that year.
• 79% of those Aggrieved were women.
• 39,182 Contravene or breaches DVO charges were laid in Queensland. Around 70% of DVOs were breached.
The below figures are the penalty’s imposed in QLD for proven breaches 2022-2023.
Imprisonment/Detention - 7,313
Custody in the Community - 54
Probation - 280
Monetary Order - 6,912
Good behaviour/Recognisance -1,266
Other - 1,810
Total - 21,749
The data from the 2022-2023 period shows that out of 39,182 charges the police laid against Respondents for breaching a DVO or Police Protection Notice (PPN), 21,749 (55%) were found guilty and a penalty was applied. Less than 20% were detained or imprisoned. The table shows the most serious penalty imposed for that Respondent and may be for multiple charges. There is no accessible data on how many breaches were recorded on perpetrators’ criminal records or ordered not to be recorded.
The maximum prison sentence available for breaching a DVO is 3 years imprisonment and increases to 5 years imprisonment if the person has committed a domestic violence offence in the previous 5 years. An offence, if committed in the context of domestic and family violence, is to be looked at as an aggravating factor when sentencing a person, according to the Queensland Sentencing Guide 2023. This means it is to be treated as more serious in nature and a harsher sentence may be administered.
The importance of DVO orders cannot be taken lightly. They can be lifesaving for a victim if treated in the manner intended and if police can gather all the information needed about an alleged perpetrator. Domestic violence is never a single incident of violence. There are always precursing abusive behaviours, often stemming from the perpetrator feeling they have a right to be in control of a person. Domestic abuse does not usually start with violence. Certainly, no intimate partner homicide has ever been a singular incident in a relationship. Nor can each incident of violence be looked at as a singular act or event, it is usually a pattern of behaviour - Coercive Control .
The Queensland Court’s Website states, “…where the respondent breaches a condition of a DVO. A conviction in relation to this offence is recorded on a defendant’s criminal history.”
Let’s take a look at just a couple of examples in the last year where this has not been the case.
Case Summary
Lawrence v Queensland Police Service [2023] QDC 213 - District Court of Queensland Caselaw (queenslandjudgments.com.au)
31 October 2022, Lawrence was convicted of breaching a DVO in a QLD Magistrates Court, whereby he was at a place of residence prior to a time where the order stated he could attend on that residence. The police were called, and he was charged. The penalty for this breach was a fine of $750 and the conviction was to be recorded on his criminal history.
Lawrence appealed the conviction, and it was decided on appeal to remove the conviction being recorded and his $750 fine remained.
Case Summary
LPA v The Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 142 (sclqld.org.au)
27 January 2023, LPA was arrested, charged with contravening a TPO and released on bail. 30 January 2023, police were called to an address and found the respondent to be breaching a TPO again. He was arrested, charged and remanded in custody for 48 days. 17 March 2023, LPA pleads guilty in a QLD Magistrates Court to breaching a DVO 13 times. The penalty for the breach was 48 days in prison which was noted as already served, he was released on 2 years’ probation. He later appealed to the higher court. His appeal was allowed, his conviction of 2 years’ probation was to remain but with no conviction to be recorded. The respondent (The Commissioner of Police) was ordered to pay the Appellant (LPA) $1,800.
These are just two recent examples where no conviction was recorded despite being found guilty.
I have to wonder:
• Does that mean there is no record of the DVO?
• Are we green lighting perpetrators to repeat abusive behaviours on new, unsuspecting partners who have no way of knowing about previous DVOs?
• How many perpetrators are out there who have multiple DVOs taken out on them or have no recorded breaches? The data can’t be found.
The documentation on DVOs is clear and it is served and explained to the Respondent. It is very straight forward they should not breach the rules. However, perpetrators may use the rules to taunt and terrorise their victim. Breaching an order is a way of getting a message to the victim that the perpetrator is still in control. The law doesn’t matter to them, and a piece of paper isn’t going to stop them.
The Coroner’s Court of Queensland Annual Report 2021-2022 details two horrific cases where there were missed opportunities to intervene when a DVO was in place. A very well-known case was the heinous murder of Hannah Clarke and her three adorable children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey by her husband she had left recently. Hannah had done all the right things; she had taken out a DVO on her husband and was living with her parents with her children. On the morning of 19 February 2020, he forced his way into Hannah’s car in a premeditated attack, doused them all in petrol and set them alight. He then hindered any opportunities of community members to help them before killing himself.
The coroner’s report discusses some missed opportunities in that the husband was not charged and put on bail for breaching the DVO and assault occasioning bodily harm in earlier instances. Instead, he was given a notice to appear in court and it was written up as common assault.
I still cannot think about this case without tearing up and I think about Hannah and her family often.
Another case in the annual report was the brutal murder of Doreen Langham. Doreen entered a relationship with Gary Hely in 2018. She separated from him in January 2021, but they remained cohabiting for 3 weeks in which time, he threatened to kill her, bombarded her with numerous text messages, became aggressive when she blocked him on socials and got a new phone number and photographed her while she slept.
She applied for a DVO on 9 Feb 2021 because she was fearful for her safety. She was issued a temporary protection order by a magistrate who made note that Hely was ‘erratic’ and ‘extremely unstable’.
11 February 2021, he was served with the TPO, and police made note that he appeared ‘agreeable and reasonable’ and that he had moved out of the house. He stated to police that the order was a surprise because there had been no violence, and she didn’t have reason to be scared. He said, ‘he loved her but would walk away’.
14 February 2021, he commenced stalking behaviours, and many breaches were made to the TPO which made Doreen even more frightened. 21 February 2021, Doreen reported to police that he was outside her house, and he hid while the police attended. Hours later he forced his way into Doreen’s home and attacked her so violently there was an injury to her spleen. He then doused her in petrol before setting the house on fire where they both died.
A horrendously painful way to die and my heart goes out to Doreen’s family and friends. Again, the system did not protect Doreen.
The coroner’s inquest discovered similar patterns of coercive control in two of Hely’s previous relationships. There was evidence presented that he had threatened to kill, rape or commit suicide. He had physically assaulted them, coerced sex, strangled, stalked, verbally abused, harassed, intimidated, left flowers, broke into homes, took intimate photos without consent, love bombed and set fire to a house.
‘The Coroner found the greatest systemic failure is that every police officer dealt with each complaint in isolation and without checking the police database for relevant information. A holistic investigative approach would have revealed that Mr Hely had concerning DV history interstate and that the frequency and severity of his behaviour was escalating.’ Coroners Court of Queensland Annual Report 21-22.
Until November 2017 Domestic Violence Orders were not even recognised interstate. There are improvements on a national level whereby the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme came into effect enabling DVOs to be recognised in every state and territory of Australia no matter where the order was taken out.
Regardless of the improvements we need to ask the questions –
• Are DVO breaches being taken seriously enough in our courts?
• How as a community can we feel or be safe when we have no way of knowing the background of new partners?
• How many serial domestic violence perpetrators live amongst us with no history recorded?
Despite us thinking there is a record kept of previous DVO breaches, we cannot rely on it. Most breaches are given lower penalties than a prison term, with majority of those receiving a fine. It all makes me wonder: are we deterring perpetrators from committing future domestic violence crimes and potentially escalating?
I don’t think so.
References:
Videos on domestic violence court process | Queensland Courts
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4533.0main+features100092013
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/going-to-court/domestic-violence/having-an-order-made-against-you
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/court-users/researchers-and-public/stats
https://www.sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au/about-sentencing/types-of-penalties/maximum-sentences
Coercive control is often defined as a pattern of controlling behaviour, used by a perpetrator to establish and maintain control over another person. Coercive control is almost always an underlying dynamic of family and domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Perpetrators use coercive control to deprive another person of liberty, autonomy and agency (Cortis and Bullen 2015; ANROWS 2021) https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/understanding-fdsv/coercive-control#:~:text=What%20is%20coercive%20control%3F%20Coercive%20control%20is%20often,family%20and%20domestic%20violence%20and%20intimate%20partner%20violence.
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/750051/osc-ar-2021-2022.pdf