Courtrooms can continue the abusive process

Courtrooms can continue the abusive process

It seems extraordinary, but nevertheless it is an every day event. Every day in courts throughout Australia, in the Family and Federal Magistrates Courts, victims of domestic violence come within metres of their attackers. Sometimes the allegations of domestic violence are denied by the other party, and sometimes they are admitted- but even when admitted that doesn’t stop the victim and perpetrator coming within a few metres of each other, or even closer when walking in and out of the court room.

An order made in a State court that says there is to be no contact by the perpetrator with the survivor- for example “The respondent shall have no contact direct or indirect personal or otherwise with the aggrieved” or a distance clause that says, for example: “The respondent shall not come within 100 metres of the aggrieved” do not prevent them from being in the same courtroom, or walking within inches of each other going into and out of the court, or from the perpetrator staring or making furtive gestures at the survivor in the courtroom or in the foyer outside.

It seems at times as though what happens in the real world outside the courtroom, of bullying and abuse, could not possibly happen in the court room because of the aura of the court environment. The reality sadly sometimes is otherwise. However, the fear can be all too real for survivors of violence,  sometimes overwhelming them.

To make it worse, if a matter proceeds to trial the perpetrator of violence can cross-examine the survivor- and continue the abuse by other means. While there is the possibility of a screen or a video link for example separating victim and perpetrator, it is not mandatory to do so, and I for one do not know how often they are used. This process of cross-examination is worsened if the perpetrator is unrepresented, which will make the cross-examination of the perpetrator look and sound like a glorified abusive and controlling argument from home, transplanted into another building.

The ABC has picked up this issue in a great story broadcast on tonight’s PM. The web version is here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-08/cuts-to-legal-aid-see-accused-rapists-cross-examining-victims/4616784.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Sharing a home does not automatically make two people a de facto couple. Equally, living apart does not necessarily mean that a de facto relationship cannot exist. Under Australian family law, the question involves more than an address. The central issue is whether the couple’s relationship amounts to living together on a genuine domestic basis.… Read More »De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Can someone be paid to donate eggs in Australia? The short answer is no. Human eggs cannot lawfully be treated as something to buy or sell. Australia permits altruistic egg donation, not commercial egg donation. But that is not the end of the story. A donor may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses associated with the… Read More »Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Does a prison sentence also mean losing the opportunity to become a parent after release? That question sits at the heart of Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services, a powerful High Court decision about egg freezing, fertility preservation and the limits of punishment. The High Court unanimously found that egg freezing did not fall… Read More »Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board