Uncategorised Archives - Goldman Law

Violence Orders Swamping Our Courts

Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) are swamping the NSW Local Court system.

An ADVO is a court order that aims to protect a person in need of protection (PINOP) from another person. It is a criminal offence to breach an order.

An ADVO can protect a person from: violence or threats of violence, stalking, intimidation, harassment, and property damage or threatened damage.

In 2020, there were 33830 final ADVOs granted by the NSW Courts, according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR). This was up from 28812 in 2016, an increase of 17 per cent. This figure does not factor in the number of ADVOs which were not granted.

NSW criminal courts finalised 140,644 court appearances in 2020/21, an increase of 20,394 (17%) from the previous year (120,250 in 2019/20).

On these figures, although the reporting periods do not align exactly, ADVO’s represent roughly one quarter of local court matters finalised in that reporting period. The number of ADVOs applied for by police has been tracking steadily upwards since 2016.

“ADVOs are overwhelming the NSW Local Court system and a new way to deal with these matters has to be found,” Goldman and Co Lawyers’ head of criminal division, Mr Mathew Nott, said.

“The delays in contested matters are an affront to the administration justice and to the rights of the people who stand accused of domestic violence.

“You contest an ADVO, as you have the right to do given the reputational and employment impacts, you need to go before the Courts on at least three occasions and maybe more. The cost can run into thousands of dollars.

“We have one client at Liverpool who has been waiting more than 20 months to have her matter resolved, through no fault of her own.

“Another client is still living with the pressure and will wait 15 months until she is heard at Bankstown.”

Legislators have enacted laws to safeguard the vulnerable and police play a key role in applying to the Courts for protective orders yet there is no doubt the system is being manipulated in some instances.

Police and the courts have become potential playthings of savvy “victims” who make complaints by way of a pre-emptive strike, particularly if there are family law proceedings involving parental custody on foot.

Courts are beset by COVID backlogs, so the delays give the interim ADVOs keep the orders enforceable for lengthy periods even though they may eventually be thrown out.

Even though an ADVO is a civil matter, they are dealt with in the criminal jurisdiction of the NSW Courts.

Mr Nott said one of the issues to resolve was the hardening of police policy which has resulted in a default refusal to negotiate the nature of or the facts underpinning them.

“There is no doubt that many orders would be consented to if police were prepared to amend the facts or the nature of the orders,” Mr Nott said.

“If police softened their policy position, these matters could be resolved in many cases the first time they were before the courts.”

Male and females under 18 are the people most in need of being protected by ADVOs, according to NSW statistics
In the period October 2020 to September 2021 (the reporting period), 5565 young men were the Person(s) in Need of Protection (PINOP). In the same period, 6385 young women were the PINOPs.

The number of female victims was almost double that of male victims with 34453 women being protected by AVOs compared to 17709 men.

In 2020 in NSW, the most AVOs, 195, were issued on the Central Coast of NSW, though Broken Hill had the highest per capita rate of offending with 348.2 offences per 100,000 people.

Males aged 30-39 years were most likely to offend, with 8898 beings subject to orders in the reporting period. Females in the same age range were also the highest offending citizens with 2570 being subject to Orders in the same period.

The most breaches of Orders occurred on the Central Coast.

Amendments to legislation now means the default duration of ADVOs to two years and new provisions allow the court to make an ADVO for an indefinite period.
There are also strategic advantages often used PINOP when police make the application for an ADVO.

The PINOP can reach out and make contact with the person restrained – no crime – to entice the person restrained to reply which constitutes a breach, then denounce that person for breach to the police.

The police will not withdraw an ADVO, as a rule.

The police will, depending upon the officer in charge, will take the defendant’s representations to the victim to consider. This should not be discretionary and should be evidenced.

If you have to deal with an ADVO, contact mathew@goldman-lawyers.com for a free consultation.

Read More

Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) threaten to swamp the NSW Justice system

The NSW justice system is at risk of being “gamed”

22nd June 2022: Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders are overwhelming the NSW Local Court system. “A new way to deal with these matters has to be found.” according to Goldman and Co Lawyers’ head of criminal division, Mr Mathew Nott. Mr Nott is a Sydney Criminal Lawyer.

An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) is a court order that aims to protect a person in need of protection (PINOP) from another person. An ADVO can protect a person from: violence or threats of violence, stalking, intimidation, harassment, and property damage or threatened damage.  

However significant delays in contested ADVOs are overwhelming the NSW justice system and an affront to the rights of the people who stand accused of such domestic violence criminal offence .

“If you contest an ADVO, as you have the right to do given the reputational and employment impacts, you need to go before the Courts on at least three occasions and maybe more,” Mr Nott said.  

“The cost can run into thousands of dollars. We have one client for domestic violence and family law  at Liverpool who has been waiting more than 20 months to have her matter resolved, through no fault of her own.”

“Another client will have to wait 15 months until she is heard at Bankstown.”

ADVO’s taking up more court time than ever  

In 2020, there were 33,830 final ADVOs granted by the NSW Courts, according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR). This was up from 28,812 in 2016, an increase of 17%.

This figure does not factor in the number of ADVOs which were not granted but still contested at hearing.

NSW criminal courts finalised 140,644 court appearances in 2020/21, an increase of 20,394 (17%) from the previous year (120,250 in 2019/20).

On these figures, although the reporting periods do not align exactly, ADVO’s represent roughly one quarter of local court matters finalised in that reporting period. The number of ADVOs applied for by police has also been tracking steadily upwards since 2016.

“Legislators have enacted laws to safeguard the vulnerable and police play a key role in applying to the Courts for protective orders, yet there is no doubt that the system is being manipulated in some instances.” Mr Nott said.

“Police and the courts have become potential playthings of savvy “victims” who make complaints by way of a pre-emptive strike, particularly if there are family law proceedings on foot.”

Mr Nott said one of the issues contributing to this current crisis was the hardening of police policy which has resulted in a default refusal to negotiate the nature of or the facts underpinning apprehended violence application  the ADVOs.

The police will not withdraw an ADVO, as a rule.

The police will, depending upon the officer in charge, take the defendant’s representations to the victim to consider, however, in Mr Nott’s opinion, this should not be discretionary and should be evidenced.

“There is no doubt that many orders would be consented to if police were prepared to amend the facts or the nature of the orders,” Mr Nott said.

“If police softened their policy position, these matters could be resolved in many cases the first time they were before the courts.”

Who are ADVOs protecting in our community – the PINPO

Male and females under 18 are the people most in need of being protected by ADVOs, according to NSW statistics

In the period October 2020 to September 2021 (the reporting period), 5,565 young men were the Person(s) in Need of Protection (PINOP). In the same period, 6,385 young women were the PINOPs.

The number of female victims was almost double that of male victims with 34,453 women being protected by AVOs compared to 17,709 men.

In 2020 in NSW, the most ADVOs(195) were issued on the Central Coast of NSW, though Broken Hill had the highest per capita rate of offending with 348.2 offences per 100,000 people.

Males aged 30-39 years were most likely to offend, with 8,898 being subject to orders in the reporting period. Females in the same age range were also the highest offending citizens with 2,570 being subject to Orders in the same period.

The most breaches of Orders occurred on the Central Coast.

Amendments to legislation now means the default duration of ADVOs is now two years and new provisions allow the court to make an ADVO for an indefinite period.

“We have seen instances where a strategic advantage is afforded to the PINOP when police make the application for an ADVO” according to Goldman & Co Lawyers’ head of criminal division, Mr Mathew Nott.

“The PINOP can reach out and make contact with the person restrained – no crime – to entice the person restrained to reply which then constitutes a breach. Then the PINPO denounces that person for breach to the police and they can be charged” says Mr Nott.

Read More

Australia-India: From the Cricket Field to the Courtroom – Lessons in Legal Reform

When Australia and India meet, the competition usually centres on cricket fields under sunlit skies. But in 2024, a new kind of rivalry emerged: the legal landscape. Legal experts now urge India to consider the lessons of Australia’s recent groundbreaking reforms in family law, a bold stride toward economic justice for survivors of domestic violence.

Australia’s Legal Cricket Match: A New Benchmark in Fairness

In Australia, the Family Law Act 1975 recently underwent a monumental change with the addition of Section 79(5). This amendment acknowledges the economic impact of domestic violence—mental or physical—on victims during the division of marital property. By recognizing family violence as a factor that can erode a victim’s contributions to the marital estate, courts are now empowered to increase divorce settlements for survivors. It’s a holistic approach, ensuring that economic justice becomes part of reparative justice.

As principal lawyer Jaswinder Sekhon of the Sydney and international law firm, Goldman & Co Lawyers puts it, “This reform establishes a global benchmark for fairness and justice, ensuring victims aren’t doubly punished—first by their abuser, and then by systemic inequities.”

India’s Legal Scorecard: Fragmentation and Challenges

India, with its diverse cultural and religious fabric, approaches matrimonial property differently. Here, religious personal laws govern marriages, creating disparities. For Hindus, maintenance and alimony exist but lack codified systems for shared marital property. Meanwhile, under Islamic law, the Mehr (dower) system often limits the wife’s financial security.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), though comprehensive in providing civil remedies, stops short of addressing property division in reparative terms. Ms. Ekta Jhanjhri, a Goldman Lawyers Indian Office Advocate, argues, “There is an urgent need to consolidate fragmented laws into a unified framework that ensures economic justice for domestic violence survivors.” 

A Push for Reform: Lessons Beyond the Border-Gavaskar Trophy

The call for legal reform coincides with strengthening ties between Australia and India, exemplified by the Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA) and the iconic Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Experts believe this camaraderie can extend to legal discourse.

Ms. Jhanjhri suggests leveraging these partnerships to encourage cross-border learning. “Australia’s reforms show how law can actively combat gender inequity. It’s time India follows suit,” she asserts. 

Addressing the Australian-Indian Diaspora

For Indians in Australia, these legal reforms hold immense promise. The community, among the largest migrant groups, grapples with cultural norms that often overlook domestic violence issues. Sekhon underscores the importance of awareness among Australian-Indians, stating, “The adoption of these reforms can redefine the cultural landscape for Indian families in Australia.”

A Roadmap for India: Bold Moves Toward Economic Justice

India’s path to reform, while complex, could benefit from Australia’s example. Key steps include:

  1. Unified Legal Frameworks: Consolidate matrimonial property laws across religions
    to provide equitable solutions
  2. Judicial Training: Equip judges with the knowledge to understand the intersection of
    domestic violence and economic justice.
  3. Community Awareness: Foster dialogue within communities to challenge outdated
    cultural norms.

A New Partnership for Change

With Australia and India collaborating on everything from cricket to trade, expanding this partnership to include family law reforms seems natural. Bold strides in gender-equitable laws could help address the economic vulnerabilities of survivors, not only strengthening India’s legal landscape but also ensuring justice for all.

As the legal field, much like cricket, evolves into a stage for global exchange, let us hope this partnership scores big in championing fairness and justice. Because when it comes to rights, it’s not just cricket—it’s everything

**********

For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact: Ms Kerry Turner,
kerry@goldman-lawyers.com or on 1300-343-560
Goldman & Co Lawyers Pty Limited, www.goldman-lawyers.com

Read More

Book your legal strategy information meeting now with a senior lawyer

Fill in the form below to book a 30-minute no-obligation consulting session. 

I will reply within 24 hours.