That has to be some of the most dangerously warped thinking I've seen expressed here. This guy has just gone and stabbed his ex-partner and her father to death, and seriously injured his daughter and her grandmother.

I know enough about AVOs to know that they are issued when one party (usually the woman) can demonstrate to a police officer that they have a plausible apprehension that the other party (usually the man) is going to be violent towards them.

Without wandering into Ros's fantasy land of spurious conjecture, I think that it is quite clear in this case that the AVO was definitely warranted.

Any thug who could do that to his family forfeits any 'rights' he may have had with respect to them, in my book.

Once again, get real.

Ros, I do not agree that RVO's are 'extremely easy' to obtain. Women/Men need at least 3 incidents of violence reported to police over the previous 6 months and this is not always possible. They are granted in the absence of the alleged perpetrator but as I said in an earlier posting a court appearance is offered for him/her to give thier side of the story. Rvo's are effective if the alleged perpetrator has a fear of the law, if not then they are only a peice of paper. I disagree strongly that RVO's are a tool of radical femininsts to separate families. They are there to protect women/men and children from harm and perhaps murder. Unfortunatley people who are at the other extreme of radical feminism pick out isolated cases of possible misuse and put genuine cases in jeopardy. There are a lot of myths around about us 'ball breaking feminazis' who work in shelters. I have yet to meet one.

Domestic Violence: Views of Queensland Magistrates

Belinda Carpenter, Sue Currie, Rachael Field

Paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Annual Conference, 2001.

Download: http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/abstr3.html

A survey was conducted of Queensland Magistrates’ views on issues concerning domestic violence. This was a replication of the NSW Judicial Commission’s survey of magistrates conducted in 1999. Within both surveys, Magistrates were asked to engage with issues of domestic violence in general as well as specific issues relating to the administration and enforcement.

The conclusion states,
"The majority of magistrates in both Queensland and New South Wales agreed that sometimes, domestic violence matters are best worked out between the two parties. They were more equally divided on whether or not it takes two to tango.

A large majority of magistrates in both states believed that DV orders were used as a tactic in family court proceedings."

Yet, "the majority of magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland believed that domestic violence procedures were fair to men".

Seems like a contradiction?

I know from personal experience and from the stories of many men and women that solicitors often influence their clients to fabricate DV orders to gain advantage in custody disputes. This is common knowledge among lawyers - if you’re their client they tell you so. This appears to be verified by this research of Queensland Magistrates.

From memory, I read that the rate of DV jumps 80 times greater during divorce proceedings.

Has anyone had false DV orders taken against them.

Erica, you say inter alia that "Women/Men need at least 3 incidents of violence reported to police over the previous 6 months". I have been following this issue for a number of years and this is news to me. Can you tell me what jurisdiction that is in and point me to a court/police/ministry of justice or other authority website where it states that that is a condition for getting an AVO/RVO/DVO or whatever you call it in the state or territory where you reside?

Further you say: "They are granted in the absence of the "alleged" perpetrator but as I said in an earlier posting a court appearance is offered for him/her to give thier side of the story." This is not before the magistrate is it? Is not the court hearing where the "alleged" perpertrator is ordered to attend arranged so as to get him to agree to an extention of the "ex parte" order on the basis of making no admissions? If he fails to agree another hearing is arranged further down the track at which the court will confirm the order on the basis of "balance of probabilities"?

Wow emotions running hot here. I can't believe those nasty feminazis abusing sweet helpless Timkins - he is never rude or provocative (I mean provocative in a non sexual sort of way, then again may be not).

Anyway I think I have a handle on what the situation is as follows:

1. Men are the innocent victims of domestic violence perpetrated by women who want divorce.

2. Women lie about domestic violence in order to get intervention orders.

3. The reason they (women) want intervention orders is so that they can force men to cough up mega amounts of maintenance.

4. Feminazis want men and marriage eliminated from the surface of the earth.

5. Men just want to be married to women who never ever question them or have the temerity to disagree with them.

6. Because of all the above this is why DV statistics obscure the true facts.

This is my experience of the RVO procedure in SA. A person attends a local police station to apply request and RVO. They will be asked if there are any police reports, incidents of police attending the premises the DV is occurring. If there are no reports on the system they may just be told they do not have enough ‘evidence’ to apply. If a person wants to pursue even though the police do not believe she/he has enough for Court they can apply direct to the Magistrates Court at a cost of $150. If the police believe there is enough a statement will be taken and goes to the Magistrates Court. The Magistrate will read the statement and decide if there is ‘reason to believe that if the protection order is not granted violence may occur’ or may decide against granting it. If granted a Court date will be set for one week hence as an opportunity for the alleged perpetrator to give their side of the story and argue as to why the Order should not proceed. If the magistrate still believes the order should remain the matter can be put to trial. If the alleged perpetrator does not have a lawyer to represent them they have the opportunity to cross examine the other party themselves. The order is not enforceable until it has been served on the offender which can also be difficult for police and does not give the offender an opportunity to attend court if the week passes and yes it is before the Magistrate that granted it. And no it is not to get him to agree to an extension. If an extension is required it can be granted by the Magistrate without the offenders permission.