|
|
|
|
|
DFV e-Newsletter
Issue 6, January 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Save the Date - Wednesday 6 February 2019 at 1pm
Lunch Time Seminar: Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board 2017-18 Annual Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please join Magistrate Terry Ryan, Chair of the Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board and State Coroner of Queensland, Ms Susan Beattie, Manager of the Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Unit, Coroner’s Court of Queensland and members of the Board, for an informative presentation on the Board’s 2017-18 Annual Report.
The 2017-18 Annual Report can be found here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding the seriousness and harm of psychological abuse: An examination of recent Queensland sentencing remarks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“The Importance of understanding the victims’ ‘reality’ of domestic violence”, Patricia Easteal, Lorana Bartels and Reeva Mittal, December 14 2018 ALJ
The authors (from the School of Law and Justice, University of Canberra) examined a small sample of sentencing remarks in recent Queensland domestic violence order breach cases and argue that sentencing for domestic violence offences and breaches of protection orders needs to be underpinned by knowledge of the long-term effects of emotional abuse.
The authors cite instances of judicial officers minimalising and trivialising violence and focus on two areas: (1) the failure to recognise and respond to the seriousness of non-physical forms of domestic violence and (2) a lack of understanding regarding the long-term effects of this type of violence on victims.
Sentencing remarks are cited by the authors drawing a distinction between physical violence and the (seemingly less serious) psychological/emotional abuse. The case of Gibuna v Queensland Police Service [2016] QDC 183 was cited [at 3] where the sentencing magistrate focused on the recurring violence of the appellant against women and children, and questioned why he had been allowed to continue to re-offend for so long. The appellate Judge however focused on the singular act of the breach [at 185]:
The learned magistrate placed considerable weight on what was described as the fear of the aggrieved person in this case, but that needs to be balanced with the fact that whilst he was a pest, a nuisance, and whilst he did disregard some court orders and bail conditions, he was not, on these occasions, particularly violent.
This case is used by the authors to demonstrate how some judicial officers can minimalise non-physical abuse (see comments at the end re the presence of non-physical violence as a lethality factor to homicide).
Instances of violence against property being treated as less serious than violence against a person was also noted. For example, the authors cited [at page 3] Taylor v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 75 where the appellate punched the bathroom door, resulting in numerous holes to it. He then removed the bedroom and bathroom hinges while yelling at the aggrieved in hearing distance of the children. This violence was downplayed by the magistrate and the appellate judge as non-physical violence.
The authors emphasise the importance of viewing the violence through the lens of the victim, rather than focusing on the act of violence with no acknowledgement of its impact on the victim. As noted [at page 3] “From the victim’s perspective, the effects of non-physical abuse may be worse than the physical and are certainly longer lasting”.
The authors also argue that what might appear (to judicial officers) as collusion or forgiveness of the perpetrator needs to be understood in the context of the impact of the non-physical violence on the victim. Survivors of domestic violence may be full of fear, suffer from low-esteem and be vulnerable to duress and coercion. Similarities are drawn between domestic violence victims and hostages exhibiting “Stockholm syndrome” where a victim can bond psychologically with an abuser to the point of sympathising with the abuser. Appearances as a couple and support for the abuser needs to viewed in this context – looking through the victims’ lens. This is illustrated by Kingham DCJ in Commissioner of Police v DGM [2016] QDC 22 [at 34-35] :
"Courts in Queensland and in other states of Australia, have recognised the need to approach submissions about reconciliation with real caution, because of the particular features of domestic and family violence…reconciliation after the victim has complained ought not mitigate the sentence.
"There may be cases in which reconciliation is relevant to an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. However, that comes from the offender’s conduct, not the victim’s forgiveness. The nature of the relationship means victims may, contrary to their own welfare, forgive their attacker. That does not reduce the risk posed by the offender and, depending on the dynamics in a particular relationship, it could well exacerbate the risk. Necessarily, prospects of rehabilitation must be assessed by reference to the offender's attitude and conduct, not the victim's."
The authors conclude [at page 5], that sentencing considerations that place weight on the ‘contribution of the victim’ and ‘support of the victim’ may be of concern and fail to appreciate the ongoing complications and insidiousness that is domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of non-physical abuse having as great an impact on victims as physical violence is a common story and is reflected in stories told to the Special Taskforce and reported in the Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland report. This is consistent with research cited in the National Domestic Violence Bench Book [for example, at section 3.1.4]: “Research indicates that threats of physical violence, restrictions on the victim’s freedoms and damage to the victim’s personal property are strong predictors of actual violence causing severe injury or death”.
The Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board reports are another important resource to assist in the understanding of the complexities of domestic violence and the need to give proper weight to non-physical acts of domestic violence, given the clear evidence that a history of non-physical violence is a predictive factor in intimate partner homicides. Data from the Death Review and Advisory Board shows that in two-thirds of cases featuring non-physical violence only, victims reported an intuitive sense of fear of the perpetrator, despite no recorded history of physical violence.
This data shows that non-physical violence is a very real threat and for this reason, the minimising of non-physical violence and the dismissal of the impact on the victim of the domestic violence and their perspective and lived experience should be re-considered. Comments such as “low-level violence” and “not particularly violent” may not reflect the full complexities involved in domestic violence cases. Non-physical acts of domestic violence need to be seen in the proper context and treated with the seriousness they deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever wondered what a day in the life of the High Risk Team officer looks like?
Court Services Queensland (CSQ) is a key partner in the work being led by the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women to drive integrated responses to domestic and family violence (DFV) to improve the safety of people experiencing DFV and their children. High Risk Teams (HRTs) are a core component of the integrated service response approach. CSQ is a member of the multi-agency HRTs in six locations (Logan/Beenleigh, Mount Isa, Cherbourg, Cairns, Brisbane, Ipswich).[i] The numbers of referrals to HRTs is significant, with numbers of active cases varying from location to location, but ranging between 15 and 80 referrals at any one site (there was an average of 65 open cases at each site for the month of November 2018, ranging from 20 in Cairns to 110 in Mount Isa).
What does a typical day of a HRT officer look like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[i] In 2018-2019, High Risk Teams will roll out across Moreton Bay (Caboolture) and Mackay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District Court of Queensland
Muir DCJ
Delivered 5 December 2018
Appeal against making of a protection order allowed
Appeal against decision of the Magistrate on 10 November 2017, after a four-day trial, to make a five-year protection order.
Grounds of appeal:
1. Whether the Magistrate erred in finding that subsequent communications sent by the appellant’s mother and the conduct of the trial by his counsel amounted to further acts of domestic violence; and
2. Whether the Protection Order was necessary and desirable to protect the appellant’s ex-wife (the second respondent) and the children of the relationship, from the appellant.
The appeal centred on the second and third limbs of section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District Court of Queensland
Kefford DCJ
Delivered 12 October 2018
Appeal against sentence dismissed
Dismissal of appeal against sentence on basis that it is manifestly excessive. Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening a domestic violence order (aggravated offence). Appellant (appearing via video-link from Woodford Prison) verbally abused and threatened the aggrieved at the hearing; sentenced to nine months imprisonment with an immediate parole eligibility date and 36 days pre-sentence custody declared as time served.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REW v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 213District Court of Queensland
Muir DCJ
Delivered 28 August 2018
Appeal against conviction allowed. Appellant found not guilty.
Appeal under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against conviction of offence of contravention of release conditions in breach of s.179(2) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012.
Sentence: to enter into a recognisance of $100 to be of good behaviour for 6 months. No conviction recorded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caddies v Birchell [2018] QDC 180
District Court of Queensland
Coker DCJ
Delivered 4 September 2018
Appeal against sentence allowed.
Appellant convicted after trial of assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence). Appellant appealed against the conviction in the District Court. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by Judge McGill on 15 November 2017. Appeal against sentence on basis manifestly excessive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R v SDF [2018] QCA 316
Court of Appeal
Fraser and Philippides JJA and Bodice J
Delivered 14 October 2018
Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed; Applicant resentenced.
Applicant pleaded guilty (at a late stage) to one count of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation (domestic violence offence); sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after 4 months for an operational period of 12 months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Domestic Violence Protection Order System as Entry to the Criminal Justice System for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
Heather Douglas and Robin Fitzgerald
Vol 7 No 3 (2018) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
The report shows that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people are named on DVOs, charged with contraventions of DVOs and are significantly more likely than non‐Indigenous people to receive a sentence of imprisonment for a contravention of a DVO, compared to non‐Indigenous people. The writers find that ATSI women are particularly overrepresented in this system. Explanations for these startling figures are reviewed, emphasising the need for a change in approach.
Read the report hereSupport Men to End Family Violence: Helping Men to End Family ViolenceProfessor Kelsey Hegarty, Professor Cathy Humphries, Dr Rhian Parker, University of Melbourne18 November 2018
The article discusses the work at the University of Melbourne’s Safer Families Centre of Research Excellence and the importance of focusing on men and children to change the trajectory for families.Read the report hereFamily, domestic and sexual violence in AustraliaAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare
2018
This report explores the latest data available on family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia. It brings together information from multiple sources on victims and perpetrators and on the causes, impacts and outcomes of violence.Read the report here Is methamphetamine use associated with domestic violence?Australian Institute of Criminology
5 December 2018
“There is considerable evidence of the impact of methamphetamine use on violent behaviour. This paper presents findings from a review of existing research on the association between methamphetamine use and domestic violence. There is evidence that methamphetamine users are more likely than non-users to perpetrate domestic violence. Importantly, methamphetamine use is frequently present along with other risk factors. This means methamphetamine use probably exacerbates an existing predisposition to violence, rather than causing violent behaviour.”Read the report here
Dreams Deferred: A survey on the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Survivor’s Education, Careers, and Economic Security
US Institute for Women’s Policy Research
2018
“This report examines the educational, economic, and employment effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on survivors and the resource needs IPV creates. Drawing on a survey of 164 survivors in shelters, transitional housing programs, and other domestic violence programs in 11 states and the District of Columbia, the report considers how survivors experience the economic consequences of abuse, the tactics their abusers use to foster economic dependence and insecurity, and the forms of assistance they need and find most helpful in addressing the financial impact of IPV.”Read the report here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Links to pages on Magistrates Intranet & other pages that are not publicly accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Chief Magistrate's Desk:
Issue One, July 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Chief Magistrate's Desk:
Issue Two, August 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Chief Magistrate's Desk:
Issue Three, September 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Chief Magistrate's Desk:
Issue Four, October 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Chief Magistrate's Desk:
Issue Five, November/December 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would you like to be reading here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
