Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:52 am
Time: 2:52 am
Results for protection orders
18 results foundAuthor: Brame, Robert Title: The Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization Summary: This study examined the impact of proactive enforcement of court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) on offender behavior and victim safety in cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. The major research goals and objectives were to assess whether proactive enforcement: (1) increased victim knowledge about no-contact orders; (2) reduced contact between offenders and victims; and (3) increased victim safety and promoted well-being. Details: Unpublished report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2009. 131p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228003.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228003.pdf Shelf Number: 117133 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRepeat VictimizationRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children Title: Domestic Violence Laws in Australia Summary: This report provides: an overview of all State and Territory and New Zealand domestic violence-specific laws providing for the making of protection orders; a comparative analysis of what behaviours constitute domestic violence for the purposes of those laws, and what relationship must exist between the persons concerned in order for the legislation to apply; a comparative analysis of the laws of each of the examined jurisdictions for the registration and enforcement of domestic violence protection orders made in other jurisdictions (‘portability’ of orders); a comparative analysis of the laws of the examined jurisdictions in relation to orders which operate to exclude a perpetrator of domestic violence from that person’s home (where the perpetrator and the victim would normally cohabit); a comparative analysis of the laws of the examined jurisdictions providing for counselling (both mandatory and voluntary) for perpetrators of domestic violence; an overview of the laws of the examined jurisdictions that make stalking an offence; an overview of the provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that have particular significance in relation to domestic violence; and an analysis of areas where there is overlap and potential for conflict between orders or injunctions made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and orders made under the State and Territory domestic violence protection orders legislation. Details: Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2009. 252p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2010 at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/domestic_violence_laws/Documents/Domestic%20Violence%20Laws%20in%20Australia%20-%20June%202009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/domestic_violence_laws/Documents/Domestic%20Violence%20Laws%20in%20Australia%20-%20June%202009.pdf Shelf Number: 120289 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Australia)Family ViolenceProtection OrdersStalkingVictims of Family Violence |
Author: Poynton, Suzanne Title: Apprehended Personal Violence Orders - A Survey of NSW Magistrates and Registrars Summary: Under Section 18 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act a person(s) who is in need of protection from someone with whom they do not have a domestic relationship can personally apply for an APVO through the Local Court or the police can apply for an APVO on their behalf. For an APVO to be granted, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person(s) in need of protection has reasonable grounds to fear and in fact fears that the defendant will engage in violence, stalking or intimidation against them. If an APVO is granted, the court can prohibit or restrict the defendant from approaching the protected person; prohibit or restrict the defendant’s access to the protected person’s home or place of work; and prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms or other weapons by the defendant. If a defendant knowingly breaches conditions of an APVO order then he or she can be imprisoned for up to two years. In order to assess the frequency with which APVOs are sought for frivolous or vexatious reasons, the Bureau conducted an online survey of 210 NSW magistrates and registrars. Of the 207 respondents who dealt with APVOs in the last 12 months, 121 (58.5%) indicated that they occasionally or sometimes dealt with frivolous or vexatious APVOs. Nearly 30 per cent indicated that they rarely dealt with frivolous or vexatious APVOs and five respondents reported they never dealt with these types of matters. Only 21 respondents (10.1%) reported that more than half of the APVOs that they deal with are frivolous or vexatious in nature. Magistrates and registrars reported that frivolous or vexatious APVO applications typically involve trivial/insignificant matters or a single act of harassment. Neighbours and acquaintances/former friends are most often the parties involved in frivolous or vexatious APVOs, with 64 per cent of respondents reporting that neighbours are frequently, usually or almost always involved in these types of matters, and 42 per cent reporting that acquaintances/former friends are frequently, usually or almost always the disputing parties. Disputes between public housing authorities/tenants were the next most frequent category of response, with nearly one-third of respondents stating that frivolous or vexatious APVOs frequently, usually or almost always involve disputes between these parties. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 13p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 161: Accessed May 9, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB161.pdf/$file/CJB161.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB161.pdf/$file/CJB161.pdf Shelf Number: 125221 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Australia)HarassmentPersonal ViolenceProtection OrdersStalking |
Author: Kelly, Liz Title: Evaluation of the Pilot of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Summary: Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) were piloted in three police force areas in 2011-12. DVPOs are a new civil provision designed to provide immediate protection for victim-survivors of domestic violence where no other enforceable restrictions can be placed upon the perpetrator. This evaluation of the pilot suggests that DVPOs were generally seen positively by practitioners and victim-survivors and were associated with a reduction in re-victimisation, particularly when used in 'chronic' cases. While a negative cost impact was found over the pilot period, there are likely to be further benefits that the evaluation could not quantify (e.g. preventing escalating violence), and over the long term the benefits increase relative to costs. The evaluation recommends wider roll out of DVPOs. Domestic abuse or violence is a crime and should be reported to the police, there are also other organisations who can offer you help and support. Call 999 if it's an emergency or you're in immediate danger. The police take domestic violence seriously and will be able to help and protect you. If it's not an emergency, contact your local neighbourhood policing team. Details: London: Home Office, 2013. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Home Office Research Report 76 : Accessed November 27, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260897/horr76.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260897/horr76.pdf Shelf Number: 131721 Keywords: Domestic Violence (U.K.)Protection OrdersVictims of Family ViolenceViolence Against Women |
Author: Trimboli, Lily Title: Persons convicted of breaching Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders: their characteristics and penalties Summary: Aims: To describe the characteristics of those found guilty of breaching an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) in NSW in 2013 and the principal penalties they received. Method: BOCSAR's Criminal Courts database provided information regarding the demographic characteristics of, and penalties imposed on, a cohort of 3,154 offenders found guilty in NSW in 2013 of breaching an ADVO as their principal offence. BOCSAR's Re-offending Database provided data regarding the number of proven court appearances in the preceding five years for a cohort of 5,023 persons with a court appearance in 2013 involving at least one proven breach ADVO. Results: Of 3,154 persons who were found guilty of breaching an ADVO as their principal offence, most were male (87.7%) and entered a guilty plea (84.6%). About one in five (22.5%) received a bond without supervision (average length=14 months) as their principal penalty; 17.8 per cent were fined (average amount=$432); 15.7 per cent received a bond with supervision (average length=16 months) and 12.4 per cent were given a custodial sentence (average length=4 months). Of 5,023 persons with a court appearance in 2013 involving at least one proven breach ADVO offence, 22.2 per cent had no proven court appearances in the preceding five years; 53.3 per cent of offenders had at least one prior proven violent offence (the main categories were assault and stalking); and 28.7 per cent of offenders had at least one prior proven breach ADVO offence. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 102: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb102.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb102.pdf Shelf Number: 135742 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRepeat OffendersRestraining Orders |
Author: Migliore, Connie Title: Intervention Orders and the Intervention Response Model Report 1. Process Evaluation Summary: On 9 December 2011, the new Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 commenced in South Australia and reformed existing laws for the restraint of domestic and personal violence. In particular, the new Act repeals the Domestic Violence Act 1994 and parts of the Summary Procedure Act 1921. The new Act provides police and courts powers to issue intervention orders to protect people from abuse. Key features of the new Act include: - Broader definitions of abuse and domestic relationships; - Improved police powers to intervene; - Special arrangements for victims and witnesses in court; - Notification requirements to relevant public sector agencies; and, - The ability to mandate a defendant to take part in an intervention program. The associated IRM has been developed as a mandatory referral pathway for suitable defendants. It consists of a 24-week group program aimed at stopping domestic violence, and a complementary support service for the partners or ex-partners of program participants. The Office of Crime Statistics and Research has been contracted by the Attorney-General's Department to evaluate the implementation and operation of intervention orders and the IRM. The evaluation is being conducted in three phases over a two-year period from June 2012 to June 2014. This document provides the results of the first phase. It is based on the first nine months of operation of the initiative, and includes: - A description of the number and type of orders issued; - A description of IRM throughput and operation; - A description of the characteristics of defendants and protected persons; and, - A summary of whether or not the model is operating as intended, including any barriers to successful implementation or operation. The report is based on quantitative data collected by relevant agencies, and qualitative data collected from interviews with key stakeholders, intervention order defendants, and protected persons. Details: Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, 2013. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 136704 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntervention ProgramsProtection Orders |
Author: Migliore, Connie Title: Intervention Orders and the Intervention Response Model: Evaluation Report 2 Summary: This report outlines the findings from a process evaluation of Intervention Orders and the Intervention Response Model, conducted in 2013 following the first year of operation. The report is the second of three reports produced on the evaluation. It details the administrative and service delivery experiences of agencies and non-government organisations, as well as protected persons and defendants. Details: Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, 2014. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_2.pdf Shelf Number: 136705 Keywords: Domestic Violence Intervention Programs Protection Orders |
Author: Migliore, Connie Title: Intervention Orders and the Intervention Response Model: Evaluation Report 3. Statistical Overview and Outcome Evaluation Summary: This report presents the results of an outcome evaluation of Intervention Orders and the Intervention Response Model. The third and final report from the evaluation, it includes a statistical profile of intervention orders, defendants and protected persons in the first two years of operation, an analysis of the impact of the Domestic Violence Perpetrator Program on defendants, and an examination of the offending behaviour of intervention order defendants before and after an intervention order. Details: Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, 2014. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/Intervention_Order_Evaluation_Report_3.pdf Shelf Number: 136706 Keywords: Domestic Violence Intervention Programs Protection Orders |
Author: Taylor, Annabel Title: Domestic and family violence protection orders in Australia: An investigation of information sharing and enforcement: State of knowledge paper Summary: This state of knowledge paper informs the empirical research to be undertaken to investigate the perspectives of key stakeholders of domestic violence protection order enforcement in Australia. The aims of this report are described and definitional issues are addressed at the outset in the Australian policy context. The priority of this issue to the Australian Government is also explored in this paper. A description of the methodology applied to this paper is followed by a comparative analysis of the legislation for enforcement of protection orders across Australia's states and territories. This section examines the implications of the varied responses to protection order enforcement. In order to recognise the pivotal role that the experience of victims plays in enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs), the following section details victims' and victim advocates' perspectives of enforcement. These insights then inform the scope of literature reviewed on the role of police and magistrates and lawyers in enforcement. The review ends with a summary of the findings and their implications for an empirical study of protection order enforcement in Australia. This state of knowledge paper has five purposes which are to: 1. investigate the current knowledge about enforcement of DVPOs in Australia; 2. understand the legislation that underpins enforcement of DVPOs in Australia across jurisdictions; 3. scope the Australian research that has been undertaken on enforcement of protection orders; 4. explore the perspectives of victims and their advocates, police and magistrates and lawyers on enforcement of protection orders; and 5. understand the existing knowledge on information sharing related to protection orders, within and across agencies and across state borders. Details: Sydney: Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety Limited (ANROWS), 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Landscapes : State of knowledge: 16/2015): Accessed January 22, 2016 at: http://media.aomx.com/anrows.org.au/s3fs-public/16_4.1%20Legal%20WEB_FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://media.aomx.com/anrows.org.au/s3fs-public/16_4.1%20Legal%20WEB_FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 137651 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersViolence Against Women |
Author: Carswell, Sue Title: Formative Evaluation of the Christchurch Metro Police Safety Order Project Summary: This report presents the findings of a formative evaluation of the Christchurch Metro Police Safety Order Project. The project is a joint collaboration between the New Zealand Police, Stopping Violence Services (SVS), Battered Women's Trust (BWT), Otautahi Maori Women's Refuge (OWR), West Christchurch Women's Refuge (WWR) and Aviva (formerly known as Christchurch Women's Refuge). The Metro PSO Project commenced as a pilot project on the 25th December 2012. The evaluation examines pilot implementation from January - December 2013. Police Safety Orders (PSO) were introduced nationally on the 1st July 2010 by the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 2009 (Domestic Violence Act insertion Part 6A, sections 124A - 124S). A PSO is issued by Police at family violence events to persons at risk of committing family violence (bound person) where there is no arrest; however an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that temporary separation is necessary to ensure the safety of persons at risk in the household. A PSO aims to deescalate a violent situation as the person bound by the order has to leave the household and cannot contact the persons at risk or the children who reside with them. The effect of the PSO can last up to five days. The Christchurch Metro Police Safety Order Project aims to improve safety within families by providing early intervention/prevention services to bound persons within the PSO timeframe where possible. The intervention services are provided by Stopping Violence Services, who contact bound persons to provide brief intervention including planning safety strategies to reduce the likelihood of family violence. SVS offers bound persons free access to further SVS services and information about other services they can access. The SVS approach is based on enabling people to take responsibility and be accountable for their behaviour. The Metro Project is based on a collaborative approach towards family safety and complements the crisis intervention already provided by Refuges to persons identified as being at risk on Police family violence reports (POL1310) where a PSO had been served. Similar to Refuge, SVS endeavour to contact bound persons as soon as possible services separately to avoid any inadvertent disclosure of information that may compromise safety. The pilot is integrated into the Family Violence Interagency Response System (FVIARS) and the FVIARS coordinator has oversight of referral processes. Bound persons are under no obligation to engage with SVS services and any engagement would be voluntary. The timing of offering intervention services was hypothesised as optimal for engagement as the bound person may be more receptive and motivated to engage shortly after receiving a PSO. The pilot has been managed by an interagency Project Management Team including NZ Police, SVS and Refuges, and is supported by an Advisory Group from the wider sector. A cross-agency professional supervision group supports operational staff after the incident. Details: Christchurch, NZ: Te Awatea Violence Research Centre, University of Canterbury, 2014. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2016 at: http://www.vrc.canterbury.ac.nz/docs/Formative%20Evaluation%20of%20Christchurch%20Metro%20Police%20Safety%20Order%20Project%2028.3.14.pdf Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.vrc.canterbury.ac.nz/docs/Formative%20Evaluation%20of%20Christchurch%20Metro%20Police%20Safety%20Order%20Project%2028.3.14.pdf Shelf Number: 137775 Keywords: Battered WomenCollaborationFamily ViolenceFamily Violence PreventionPolicingProtection OrdersVictims of Family ViolenceViolence Prevention |
Author: Victoria Legal Aid Title: Characteristics of respondents charged with breach of family violence intervention orders Summary: Breaches of family violence intervention orders are one of the fastest growing offences in Victoria, so understanding who breaches and why, is important for agencies that provide services to both respondents and applicants. This paper identifies the common characteristics of respondents who receive legal assistance when charged with breach of a family violence intervention order. It also analyses the characteristics of clients who have received legal assistance multiple times when charged with breaching a family violence order. The paper reinforces the need to ensure: - people charged with breaches receive appropriate legal advice - orders are tailored to the circumstances of each client - that we make appropriate referrals to other agencies, including non-legal agencies if necessary. Providing appropriate legal advice and support may help increase the rate of compliance with family violence intervention orders, reduce recidivism and increase safety for victims. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Legal Aid, 2016. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2016 at: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/research-and-analysis/characteristics-of-respondents-charged-with-breach-of-family-violence-intervention-orders Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/research-and-analysis/characteristics-of-respondents-charged-with-breach-of-family-violence-intervention-orders Shelf Number: 138167 Keywords: Domestic Violence Intimate Partner Violence Protection Orders Violence Against Women |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Prior Offences and Reoffending Summary: Building on the Council's previous work, this study examines factors associated with reoffending by, and the prior offences of, the 1,898 offenders sentenced for breaching a family violence intervention order or family violence safety notice in Victoria in the financial year 2009-10. The study examines offending by this group in the five years before, and the five years after, 2009-10. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2016 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Contravention%20of%20FVIOs%20and%20FVSNs%20Prior%20Offences%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Contravention%20of%20FVIOs%20and%20FVSNs%20Prior%20Offences%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 140128 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Goggins, Becki Title: State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Checks: Protection Order Submissions Summary: A protection order - also known as a restraining order, order of protection, protective order, or an injunction - is an order issued by a civil or criminal court for the purpose of preventing violence or threatening acts or harassment against, sexual violence, or contact or communication with or physical proximity to another person.1 This order may also contain other provisions such as requiring the abuser to relinquish firearms and/or refrain from all contact with the victim of abuse. When the subject of the protection order violates the terms established by the court, the victim can ask law enforcement (or the court) to enforce the order. In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which requires all U.S. states and territories to give "full faith and credit" to all valid orders of protection issued by other jurisdictions including tribal lands, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The intent of this provision is to ensure that victims of abuse can call upon law enforcement for protection no matter where they are in the country. While persons who have been granted protection orders are encouraged to keep a copy of the order with them at all times, sometimes this is simply not practical or even possible. Since many jurisdictions require validation of a protection order if it cannot be visually inspected, it is important that protection orders be entered into the Protection Order File of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) as this is the best way to ensure that a record of its existence can be confirmed by law enforcement across the nation. For firearm- and explosive-related background checks the federal law contains provisions that narrow the circumstances when a protection order serves as a bar to receiving a firearm. The protection order must restrain the person who is the subject of the protection order from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or prevent the subject of the order from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury. An intimate partner is defined as the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabits or has cohabited with the person. In addition, the protection order must arise from a hearing in which the subject of the order had both notice and opportunity to participate. Some states have enacted laws expanding the nature of the relationship or types of conduct underlying the issuance of a protection order; these expanded-parameter protection orders serve as state disqualifiers for receiving a firearm. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts; Sacramento: SEARCH - National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249864.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249864.pdf Shelf Number: 140374 Keywords: Background ChecksDomestic ViolenceGun ControlProtection OrdersRestraining Orders |
Author: Fields, Shawn E. Title: Debunking the Stranger in the Bushes Myth: The Case for Sexual Assault Protection Orders Summary: Rape mythologies about the "stranger lurking in the bushes" continue to inform attitudes and decisions by law enforcement personnel, judges, and juries. These archaic stereotypes prejudice sexual assault victims by conditioning factfinders to distrust rape allegations lacking corroborative evidence of a physical struggle with a stranger. In reality, over three-quarters of all sexual assaults in the United States are committed by someone known to the victim; more often than not the victim and perpetrator live, work, or attend school together. Given the perpetuation of rape myths, the incarceration rate for these "acquaintance rape" offenders currently stands at less than 1%. The failure of the criminal justice system to protect sexual assault victims from perpetrators with ongoing access to their victims puts victims at genuine risk of future harm. Moreover, existing civil restraining order statutes remain largely unavailable to sexual assault victims, because these statutes either require the presence of a romantic relationship or impose an unattainably high burden of proof for victims with little extrinsic evidence of physical assault. This Article advocates for a new Sexual Assault Protection Order that imposes no relationship requirement, operates under a lower burden of proof, and provides carefully-tailored prospective relief specifically designed for sexual assault victims. This Article also considers the constitutional concerns of critics who argue that restraining order hearings impermissibly adjudicate criminal guilt under more permissive civil procedures. The Article concludes by balancing these competing concerns, and recommending a model Sexual Assault Protection Order that can both provide tangible, attainable protection remedies to victims and adequately protect the rights of the accused. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849871 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849871 Shelf Number: 140792 Keywords: Acquaintance RapeProtection OrdersRapeRestraining OrdersSexual Assault |
Author: Poynton, Suzanne Title: Breach rate of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders in NSW Summary: Aim: To estimate the proportion of ADVOs breached and identify factors associated with a breach of a final order. Method: Details of all ADVOs granted between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014 (inclusive) were extracted from the NSW COPS database and linked to breach ADVO incidents occurring after 1 July 2013 and before 30 June 2015 using defendant and victim identifying information. Breaches were assigned to a particular order if they occurred after the order issue date and before the order expiry date or before a higher ADVO order was issued. Multivariate analysis was undertaken to examine factors independently associated with the time to first breach of a final ADVO. Results: Overall 23,240 provisional orders, 18,045 interim orders and 24,458 final orders were issued during the observation period. The breach rate was much higher for final orders (20%), which are longer in duration, than for provisional (5%) or interim (9%) orders. When breaches occurred, most often only one incident per order was recorded (88% of provisional order breaches, 73% of interim order breaches and 64% of final order breaches). Of all ADVOs which did record a breach, 34% were breached within one month of being granted, 23% within 1-3 months and 18% within 3-6 months. Male, Indigenous and younger POIs breached their final order sooner than other defendants. Final orders protecting just one victim, non-Indigenous victims or victims aged less than 20 took longer to be breached. Conclusion: Only a minority proportion of ADVOs record a breach whilst the order is in effect. Where a breach does occur it most often happens soon after the order is issued and involves a single incident. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 119: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Breach-rate-of-Apprehended-Domestic-Violence-Orders-in-NSW-BB119.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-Breach-rate-of-Apprehended-Domestic-Violence-Orders-in-NSW-BB119.pdf Shelf Number: 147315 Keywords: Court OrdersDomestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRestraining Orders |
Author: Everytown for Gun Safety Title: A Census of Domestic Violence: Gun Homicides in Arizona Summary: On December 20, 2012, after months of escalating harassment and violent threats, Joseph Leroy Francis approached his ex-girlfriend Ashley Hicks in the parking lot of her apartment building in Tucson, Arizona. He grabbed her arm and asked to talk to her. When she resisted, he shot her seven times, killing her. Afterwards he drove to Ashley's parents home, told them he had killed their daughter, and then went home and shot himself. The incident was tragic, and it also might have been prevented, since there was ample evidence that Joseph posed a danger to Ashley. On August 17, 2012, four months before the murder, Joseph assaulted Ashley in a grocery store. That same day, she obtained an order of protection against him. The court that issued the order had the power to require Joseph to turn in his firearms - but chose not to, even though it is well established that a gun in the hands of a batterer increases five-fold the risk of homicide for his partner. Fifteen states mandate that people subject to domestic violence protection orders turn in their firearms, but Arizona is not one of them. In the last months of Ashley's life, Joseph repeatedly violated the order of protection. He broke into her home by punching through a window. He threw a motorcycle helmet at her and smashed her phone after she called the police. He brandished a knife and threatened to kill her with it. He visited her workplace. Police received notification of the violations but Joseph was never charged. Ashley's story is devastating and, unfortunately, not unique. Domestic violence homicides in Arizona are, to a significant degree, a problem of gun violence. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety analysis of the last five years of FBI data, 62 percent of women killed by intimate partners in Arizona were shot to death. All told, the rate of intimate partner gun homicides in Arizona is 45 percent higher than the national average. To better assess the dynamics of domestic violence gun homicides in Arizona, Everytown collaborated with the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (ACESDV) to closely examine intimate partner gun homicides in Arizona between 2009-2013. This research-the first and most comprehensive of its kind for the state-yielded the following findings: In total, Everytown identified 105 homicides in Arizona between 2009-2013 in which someone was murdered with a firearm by a current or former intimate partner. In 89 percent of the cases, the victim was a woman. Perpetrators also shot 32 other victims - neighbors, friends, family members, and children - killing 25 of them, 11 of whom were children. There were ample indications that the perpetrators posed a risk to their partners. One in seven shooters (13 percent) was prohibited from possessing firearms due to their criminal history or an active order of protection. Furthermore 41 percent of the shooters had a previous arrest or conviction or had been under an order of protection at one time. Offenders under an active order of protection were rarely required to turn in their firearms. A person under an active order of protection is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law,11 but of the perpetrators identified in this census that were under an active order of protection, only one in six has been affirmatively required to turn in their firearms. The shootings occurred across the state but, controlling for population, the domestic violence gun homicide rate in Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai counties is more than double that of the state as a whole. Firearms were used far more frequently to murder an intimate partner than to kill an abuser in self-defense. Out of 105 incidents, only one perpetrator claiming to have used the firearm in self-defense had that claim upheld by a court. In at least four additional incidents, the victim had purchased a gun for self-defense prior to the incident but was not able to use it or worse, had it used against them. The incidents documented in this report, and the data drawn from them, vividly illustrate that Arizona needs an improved approach to addressing the threat gun violence poses for victims of domestic violence. Details: New York: Everytown For Gun Safety, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2018 at: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/Everytown-AZDV%20Report_0504_vFINAL-web%20(4).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/Everytown-AZDV%20Report_0504_vFINAL-web%20(4).pdf Shelf Number: 149295 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection Orders |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "One Day I"ll Kill You": Impunity in Domestic Violence Cases in the Brazilian State of Roraima Summary: Roraima is the deadliest state for women and girls in Brazil. Killings of women reached 11.4 homicides per100,000 women in 2015, more than double the national average. Studies in Brazil and worldwide estimate a large percentage of women are killed by partners or former partners. "One Day I'll Kill You" draws on documentation of 31 cases of domestic violence in Roraima and on interviews with victims, police, and justice officials. Women in Roraima often suffer abuse for years before they report it to the police. When they do, the government's response is grossly inadequate. Military police do not respond to all emergency calls from women who say are experiencing domestic violence. Some civil police officers refuse to register domestic violence complaints or request protection orders. Instead, they directvictims to the single "women's police station" in the state-which specializes in crimes against women- even at times when that station is closed. No police station in the state has private rooms to take victims' statements, and not a single civil police officer receives training on how to handle domestic violence cases. In Boa Vista, the state capital, police have failed to do investigative work on a backlog of 8,400 domestic violence complaints. Most cases languish for years until they are eventually closed because the statute of limitations on the crime expires-without any prosecution. The serious problems in Roraima reflect nationwide failures. Authorities need to reduce barriers for women to access the police and ensure that domestic violence cases are properly documented, investigated, and prosecuted. Details: New York: HRW, 2017. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/brazil0617_web.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Brazil URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/brazil0617_web.pdf Shelf Number: 149843 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceHomicidesIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersViolence Against Women, Girls |
Author: Ofer, Nogah Title: Super-complaint : Police failure to use protective measures in cases involving violence against women and girls Summary: Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ) is a charity established in 2016 with the purpose of holding the state to account on its response to violence against women and girls (VAWG). Our Director, Harriet Wistrich, and our two solicitors, are specialists in civil claims against public authorities and public law. In addition to conducting our own strategic litigation we provide training to frontline organisations in the women's sector on failures around VAWG in the criminal justice system and the legal remedies available to address them. We also provide legal advice to frontline organisations and members of the public in individual cases involving policing and prosecution of VAWG. This super-complaint draws together failures by the police to utilise four separate legal protections that exist for the benefit of vulnerable people experiencing domestic abuse, sexual violence, harassment and stalking, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and girls. Whilst we analyse the circumstances surrounding each of these legal powers, it is important to appreciate the cumulative effect of these widespread failings, which together amount to a systemic failure on the part of the state to provide protection for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Use of these powers can prevent serious harm and a lack of response by police creates impunity, with perpetrators perceiving that there are no repercussions for their actions, and survivors perceiving that nothing happens when policing action is sought and that it is not worth reporting to police. This systemic failure persists despite the Government's avowed determination to address VAWG, since, as Home Secretary, Theresa May launched a Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls in 2010. It also persists some five years after HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMICFRS) published its first thematic report on the policing of domestic abuse in 2014, with subsequent regular progress reports, the latest published only last month. The police service as a whole adopted a "positive action" approach to VAWG in 2008 , yet that has not been reflected in practice on the ground, as identified by HMICFRS in its reports. One in five women killed by a current or former partner in 2017-2018 had been in contact with the police . It appears from the evidence reported by frontline women's services, that lack of protection for women is on the increase, partly resulting from a lack of understanding of abuse by police officers so that available powers are not properly utilised, and partly due to under-resourcing of police forces. We shall consider these factors in more detail below. Not only is there a political and policy failure by the state to effectively tackle a social ill acknowledged to be of epidemic proportions (see statistics at page 9 below) but also a failure to meet the state's legal duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Our legal analysis below sets out the law around the state's positive obligations to protect the right to life (Article 2), prevent inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and enforce respect for private and family life (Article 8). When the policing of VAWG is compared to that of other crime types, these breaches are clearly discriminatory, impacting disproportionately on women and girls (Article 14). We are concerned that the real hurdles to effective action to protect women from violence, abuse and coercion are not being tackled, and that despite the efforts devoted to it, the Domestic Abuse Bill will not produce the desired protection. The problems we see are not a lack of legal powers or a need for broad legislative change (though some changes in the law are identified in this super-complaint) but a failure to utilise existing legal powers. This seems to be due to the low priority accorded to VAWG, lack of training and effective supervision, a failure to apply deterrent sanctions on officers who disregard these duties, and chronic under-funding of frontline policing of VAWG. There seems little purpose in adding a Domestic Violence Protection Order to the statute books to lie unused, when similar existing orders are not being utilised. Outline of this report -- The four protective measures addressed in this super-complaint are: 1. Failure to impose bail conditions: a. Where suspects are interviewed following voluntary attendance and bail cannot be used; b. Where suspects are interviewed under arrest, release under investigation without bail, or release on bail without bail conditions; c. Where bail is not extended beyond 28 days 2. Failure to arrest for breach of non-molestation orders; 3. Failure to utilise Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Domestic Violence Protection Orders; 4. Failure to apply for restraining orders at conclusion of criminal proceedings; We shall briefly outline the wider picture on policing of VAWG, and then examine each of the four protective measures separately, and for each consider: - The view from the frontline - Information from other sources (where available) - The response of oversight bodies - CWJ's analysis and recommendations for action. Details: London: Centre for Women's Justice, 2019. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2019 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa98420f2e6b1ba0c874e42/t/5c91f55c9b747a252efe260c/1553069406371/Super-complaint+report.FINAL.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa98420f2e6b1ba0c874e42/t/5c91f55c9b747a252efe260c/1553069406371/Super-complaint+report.FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 155615 Keywords: Domestic ViolencePolice ResponsePolicing Domestic AbuseProtection OrdersRestraining OrdersViolence Against Women, Girls |