4.1 The definitions relevant to Part 15A are contained in s 562A and in s 4 of the Crimes Act. The three crucial definitions considered in this chapter are “domestic violence”, “personal violence offence” and “domestic relationship”.
4.2 Currently, Part 15A provides that an APVO may be issued where a person has reasonable grounds to fear, and in fact fears, the commission of a personal violence offence.1 An ADVO may also be issued in such circumstances, but only if the personal violence offence is committed against a person who is in a domestic relationship with the offender.2 Part 15A also provides that an AVO (either an ADVO or an APVO) may be issued to protect a person from the offence of stalking and intimidation.3
4.3 A personal violence offence is defined in s 4 of the Crimes Act to include the commission of, or the attempt to commit, a range of offences such as murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding or damage, assault, sexual assault and contravening an AVO. A domestic violence offence is defined in s 4 of the Crimes Act as a personal violence offence committed against a person who has a domestic relationship with the person who commits the offence. There is no express definition of domestic violence in the Crimes Act.
4.4 A general issue raised in submissions and consultations was that definitions must be written in plain English such that all parties, particularly a person from a non-English speaking background will have a clear understanding of what constitutes an offence.4
4.5 Another general issue raised was that all relevant definitions should be easily located within Part 15A.5 Currently, users of the legislation are required to refer to each of the 37 sections of the Crimes Act which list the personal violence offences, as well as Parts 1 and 15A for the definition of a domestic relationship, to be able to determine the meaning of domestic violence. The separation of each of these facets of a definition of a domestic violence offence can be confusing. It has been suggested that locating the components of a domestic violence offence, including the definition of domestic relationship and the naming of each relevant personal violence offence in the beginning of Part 15A would be of great benefit.6
DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
“Domestic violence”
4.6 In DP 45, the Commission raised the issue of the need for further clarification of the meaning of “domestic violence”. Opposing views were expressed in submissions and consultations. While some felt no amendment was necessary,7 others suggested that there should be a separate definition of “domestic violence” that is not linked to the definition of a personal violence offence, since actual or threatened domestic violence is the basis for granting an ADVO.8 There is also a concern that the current definition of domestic violence does not focus adequately on the impact of psychological harm which is often prevalent in situations of domestic violence. Currently, the only reference to psychological harm is via the stalking and intimidation provisions which do not cover all circumstances where psychological harm occurs in a domestic context.
Other jurisdictions
4.7 All Australian States and Territories have legislation similar to Part 15A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which establish some form of an apprehended violence order or restraining order regime. In each of these jurisdictions, except for Tasmania and Western Australia, the legislative framework for such orders makes express reference to “domestic violence” or violence within “domestic relationships” or between “family members”.9 The definitions differ marginally from each other, but they all involve some form of actual or threatened personal injury or property damage, and intimidating, harassing and otherwise indecent or inappropriate behaviour.
4.8 In Tasmania and Western Australia the governing legislation does not define the terms “domestic violence” and “domestic relationship”. In Tasmania, orders are issued on the basis of the safety of property and person.10 In Western Australia, the focus appears to be on protecting the person from a violent personal offence and behaviour that will cause a fear of such an offence occurring. There is also a “catch all” provision which allows the granting of a violence restraining order in “appropriate circumstances”.11
4.9 The New Zealand legislation12 is unique in that it specifically defines domestic violence to include a reference to various forms of psychological abuse.13 Special mention is also made of psychological abuse of children.14 The Act also states that the person who suffers the abuse is not regarded as the person who caused the child to see or hear the abuse15 (to ensure that the person suffering abuse is not unfairly targeted as causing harm to any children).16 Further, the Act states that behaviour may be categorised as psychological abuse even if it does not involve actual or threatened physical or sexual abuse.17
Views expressed in submissions
4.10 Many submissions made reference to the exploitation of a power imbalance being an important element of any definition of domestic violence.18 The exploitation of a power imbalance often manifests itself in psychological abuse with or without physical violence. Moreover, this power and control often continues even after separation in the case of a relationship where children are involved, particularly during contact visits. This is one of the distinguishing features between personal and domestic violence: in the former, geographical separation usually ameliorates the problem, whereas in the latter, the power and control does not necessarily end with the physical separation.19
4.11 Some submissions favoured the definition recommended in the Model Domestic Violence Laws Report,20 which defined domestic violence as:
- causing or threatening to cause a personal injury to the protected person, or the abduction or confinement of the protected person;
- causing or threatening to cause damage to the protected person’s property;
- causing or threatening to cause the death of, or injury to, an animal, even if the animal is not the protected person’s property;
- behaving in a harassing or offensive way towards the protected person; or
- stalking the protected person.21
4.12 Others have suggested that specific reference must also be made to fear, physical assault, threats, sexual assault, harassment, including sexual harassment, causing or threatening to cause injury to people other than the protected person; verbal abuse; abuse during court proceedings, and causing emotional distress.22 This would have the benefit of influencing the interpretation of what constitutes domestic violence away from the traditional belief that it includes only physical assault.23 For many victims of domestic violence it is the economic, psychological and emotional abuse which causes the most fear.24 The definition should also cover a situation where the abuse comprises social or cultural control, or financial control such as withholding money.25
4.13 Another issue raised in many submissions is the need to recognise the impact of domestic violence on children and young people. In this context, it has been suggested that the definition must also make reference to the damage done to children who witness violence between parents.26 Further, it must include threats against children (including to abduct children) and against close family members who seek to support the applicant.27
The Commission’s views
4.14 Having considered the above, and given that the meaning of domestic violence is crucial to this Part, the Commission favours a separate definition of “domestic violence”.
4.15 In developing a definition of domestic violence, the Commission has given serious consideration to the various elements necessary to constitute the definition. While personal violence is commonly associated with physical abuse and is widely accepted as a form of domestic violence, it is important to emphasise that non-physical violence such as psychological and emotional harm or abuse is also a common form of domestic violence. The current approach does make reference to intimidation, harassment and molestation28 which causes psychological abuse. However, the Commission is of the view that there should be a specific focus on psychological harm to emphasise that such behaviour is unacceptable.
4.16 The Commission is also of the view that another notable element in a domestic violence situation is the power and control the perpetrator has over the victim. It is not just that there exists an imbalance of power which may characterise many relationships, but that that imbalance is exploited by the stronger partner. The power imbalance is also very relevant in relation to people with a disability, particularly where they are dependent on carers. Thus, the withdrawal of essential services, medication and other devices essential to the person’s health and wellbeing may be a form of psychological abuse and thus amount to domestic violence.29
4.17 While the exploitation of the power and control element is often a characteristic of domestic violence, it should not be assumed that this is the case in every violent domestic relationship. There are many family relationships, where both parties are on an equal footing, yet a personality disorder or addiction may cause one party to be violent or abusive towards the other. In such situations, the violence and intimidation is no less real even though there is no power imbalance between the parties.
4.18 In framing a definition that includes all of the above, the Commission has been guided by the New Zealand definition of domestic violence. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that a separate definition of domestic violence be inserted in the Crimes Act, similar to that adopted in the New Zealand legislation. This new definition will cover physical violence by reference to the definition of personal violence offences (as is currently the case). It will also make specific reference to psychological harm as it affects the person in need of protection and psychological and physical damage done to children of the relationship.
4.19 Although largely based on the New Zealand definition, the draft definition differs in one aspect from the New Zealand provision by providing that the person who suffers abuse is exempt from being responsible for psychologically abusing a child of the relationship only if there is reasonable excuse. In contrast, the New Zealand provision provides a blanket exemption to the person who has suffered abuse, thus making it impossible for the person to be liable for causing or allowing the child to be at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse. In the Commission’s view such a blanket exemption has the potential to be abused by victims of abuse.
4.20 With regard to the location of definitions within the Crimes Act, the Commission supports the approach currently adopted with regard to the definition of a domestic relationship where it is defined in s 562A of Part 15A and duplicated in s 4 within the current definition of a domestic violence offence. For present purposes, however, the Commission recommends that the new definition of “domestic violence” be inserted in s 562A of Part 15A of the Crimes Act.
4.21 Including a separate definition of domestic violence will necessitate the consequential amendment of s 562AE which currently provides the circumstances in which the court may make an ADVO. In the absence of a specific definition of domestic violence, this section implicitly describes the elements of a domestic violence offence: fearing the commission by the other person of a personal violence offence against the person, harassment or molestation, intimidation or stalking. The Commission is of the view that the current approach is somewhat indirect. The insertion of a new definition of domestic violence will not only clarify the meaning of the term but will also eliminate the need for listing the circumstances in which an ADVO may be made in preference to making specific reference to the new definition.
4.22 Apart from the above consequential amendment, the Commission also recommends that the wording of s 562AE(1) be clarified. Currently the section provides that the court may make an ADVO if on the balance of probabilities a person has “reasonable grounds to fear and in fact fears” the commission of an act of domestic violence. In the Commission’s view, it is important that the court adopt a two step approach, that is, that it satisfies itself on the balance of probabilities that:
(i) facts exist which provide reasonable grounds to fear domestic violence; and
(ii) the person in fact fears domestic violence.
RECOMMENDATION 8
A new definition of “domestic violence” should be inserted in Part 15A by substituting the following for s 562A(2):
(2) For the purposes of this Part “Domestic Violence”, means:
(a) violence against a person by another person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship.
(b) In this section, “violence” means the actual or threatened commission of:
(i) a personal violence offence (as defined in section 4),
(ii) psychological abuse, including, but not limited to intimidation and threats to commit personal violence offence,
(iii) damage to property belonging to, or in the possession of, or used by the person.
(c) Without limiting subsection (b)(ii), a person psychologically abuses a child if that person without reasonable excuse,
(d) Without limiting subsection (b) of this section, psychological abuse may be constituted by
(i) a single act or a number of acts that form a pattern of behaviour, even though some or all of those acts, when viewed in isolation, may appear to be minor or trivial;
(ii) behaviour which does not involve the actual or threatened commission of a personal violence offence.
RECOMMENDATION 9
Section 562AE (1) and (2) should be amended as follows:
562AE
(1) A court may on complaint, make an apprehended domestic violence order if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:
(2) Despite subsection (1), it is not necessary for the court to be satisfied that the person for whose protection the order is made in fact fears that such domestic violence will be engaged in if:
(a) the person is under the age of 16 years, or
(b) the person is, in the opinion of the court suffering from an appreciably below average general intelligence function.
Section 562AE(3) should be repealed.
DEFINITION OF PERSONAL VIOLENCE
“Personal Violence”
4.23 The only real criticism of the current definition of personal violence is that the particular offences are scattered through the Crimes Act.30 It has been suggested that a new definition of personal violence be included in s 562A(1) along the lines of the definition in s 4 of the Crimes Act listing the various offences and section numbers in the Crimes Act that constitute personal violence offences. The Department for Women has suggested that the following offences be added to the list of personal violence offences:
- s 26 (conspiring to commit murder);
- s 31 (documents containing threats);
- s 35A (maliciously cause dog to inflict grievous bodily harm);
- s 65A (sexual intercourse procured by intimidation, coercion and other non-violent threats);
- s 80D (causing sexual servitude);
- s 86 (kidnapping);
- s 87 (child abduction); and
- s 93G (causing danger with firearm or speargun).31
The Commission’s views
4.24 The Commission sees the value of Part 15A being as self contained as possible. There is, however, also a need to retain the definition of a personal violence offence in s 4 to allow for its general application across the Crimes Act. The Commission considers that the definition ought to list the name and section numbers of the various offences that constitute personal violence and that the additional offences suggested above should be included in the list.
RECOMMENDATION 10
The definition of a “Personal Violence Offence” in s 4 should be amended to list the various offences and section numbers in the Crimes Act that constitute personal violence offences. The list of offences should also be expanded to include the following:
s 26 (conspiring to commit murder);
s 31 (documents containing threats);
s 35A (maliciously cause dog to inflict grievous bodily harm);
s 65A (sexual intercourse procured by intimidation, coercion and other non-violent threats);
s 80D (causing sexual servitude);
s 86 (kidnapping);
s 87 (child abduction); and
s 93G (causing danger with firearm or speargun).
DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP
“Domestic Relationship”
4.25 The definition of “domestic relationship” is pivotal because it determines whether a person should apply for an ADVO or an APVO. Currently, Part 15A provides that people are in a domestic relationship if they:
- are, or have been married;
- are, or have been in a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Property Relationships Act 1984 (NSW);
- have, or have had, an intimate personal relationship whether or not of a sexual nature;
- are living in the same household or other residential facility;
- have, or have had, a relationship where one party is dependent on the other providing ongoing unpaid care; or
- are, or have been, relatives.32
4.26 The current definition was extended in 1999 to include same sex defacto partners, housemates (including tenants, boarders and people living in institutions or group homes), carers and former relatives, such as ex-in-laws.
Should the emphasis be on the existence of a “domestic relationship” or an exploitation of power and control?
4.27 While some submissions have expressed the view that the definition is adequate,33 others have raised concerns about whether the existence of a “domestic relationship” (however defined) ought to be the distinguishing feature between an ADVO and an APVO. It has been suggested that the exploitation of a power imbalance can happen outside a domestic relationship but can have the same dynamics. For example, if elderly people, people with a disability, or people in Housing Commission accommodation are harassed by someone who is in a position of control, other than those with whom they have a domestic relationship, they will need to make an application for an APVO with limited support.34 One particular example cited to the Commission was where a person with a disability had been harassed by a relative of the carer. In this case, there was no domestic relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, but there was an abuse of power and control given the victim’s physical disability and dependence on the carer. In this context, it has been suggested that the focus ought to be on whether the person is in a position of power and control and whether there has been an exploitation of that power and control irrespective of whether there is a domestic relationship.35
4.28 On the other hand, some submissions have expressed the view that the definition is now too inclusive and that applications that should be treated as APVOs are now being treated as ADVOs because they fall within the domestic relationship definition due to a technicality. It has been suggested that “factors unique to domestic violence are diluted”,36 for example, prisoners taking ADVOs against warders.37 Some think that paid carers or flatmates should not be included as this is a contractual rather than a domestic arrangement.38 Again, it has been suggested that the determining factor should be the level of dependency and control39 and that it is arguable that broadening the definition in 1999 has weakened the focus on the particular problem of domestic violence.40 People living in the same household and carer relationships were included due to the consequences of the split between ADVOs and APVOs and the need to provide these people with protection. However, the focus of ADVOs should be on violence in relationships with some “intimacy or familial context”. Therefore, it has been suggested that the above two categories should be removed from the definition of domestic relationship, although they should still receive protection through APVOs.41
4.29 The Violence Against Women Unit disagrees, believing that the definition should remain inclusive, as some carers are hired and paid, yet others are family members. It could also have the potential to exclude people living in institutional settings, which would further marginalise people who are older and/or have disabilities. AVO legislation should reflect the varied ways in which people live their lives.42
Other relationships
4.30 The Commission received many submissions regarding the need to cover other relationships. For instance, some submissions have expressed the need to include kinship relationships that occur according to indigenous customs or contemporary practice, as in the Northern Territory and Queensland.43
4.31 Others have suggested that the definition should be broadened to include those who have “dated” but not had an intimate relationship,44 situations where only one party believes there has been an intimate personal relationship (this apparently can be a problem in some stalking relationships),45 and where there has been sexual assault.46 Another category suggested for inclusion is an ex partner’s new partner.47
4.32 Another category of relationship that is presently not covered is the foster carer of a child who is a ward of the State in relation to the child’s natural parents. An example given to the Commission was an instance where the natural father of the children in foster care verbally abused the foster carer. The DOCS case worker was able to get the police to take an ADVO against father for the protection of the children but the foster carer was forced to take an APVO for her own protection against the natural father as she had no “domestic relationship” with the natural father of the children.48
Clarification of terminology
4.33 The definition of a domestic relationship in s 562A(3)(d) has been a source of concern for many police officers. In this section, a person has a domestic relationship with another person if the person “… is living or has lived in the same household or other residential facility as the other person”. The term “other residential facility” has caused confusion, as there is no clear definition of the term within Part 15A or Part 1. Some police officers have questioned whether it could apply to correctional facilities, hospitals where patients are required to stay for extended periods or backpacker hostels. If persons living in such facilities are considered to have a “domestic relationship”, then the police will be required to apply for an ADVO instead of an APVO if and when violence occurs between such persons.49
4.34 A similar concern was raised in a consultation with the Commission in relation to violence between students who live in a boarding school. Violence between the same students in the playground at school will call for an application for an APVO while violence in the boarding house would seem to call for an ADVO.50
The Commission’s views
4.35 While an exploitation of power and control can happen in a range of circumstances beyond the boundaries of the immediate family and other specified relationships, anecdotal information suggests that it is often a distinguishing feature between domestic and personal violence, in that it may be more prevalent in the former than the latter. However, to use it as the only determinant could result in a limitless stream of ADVO applications that could have been treated as APVOs. Limiting domestic violence to identified relationships as is the current approach, will also mean that it will continue to reflect the “special category of domestic violence”51 and not detract from the emphasis rightly placed on domestic violence.52
4.36 With regard to the need to extend the definitions further, the Commission agrees that the definition must include relationships that occur according to indigenous customs to ensure that the legislation provides protection for all Aboriginal people. The Commission also agrees that an ex-partner’s new partner ought to be included in the definition for practical reasons. The definition of a carer should include a foster carer in relation to a child in foster care and the child’s natural parents.
4.37 On the issue of the meaning of “other residential facility”, the Commission is of the view that if people live in a facility that provides long-term accommodation, akin to a home, then such people should be considered to have a domestic relationship. Thus, violence between two patients in a hospital or in a backpacker hostel should be considered to be personal violence as such places do not provide long term accommodation. On the other hand, violence between two students occupying the same dormitory or prisoners sharing a cell in a correctional institution may be considered domestic violence. However, violence between students who are boarders but who do not share the same dormitory may not be domestic violence, as they would fall into the category of neighbours rather than two people who share a common space. Similarly, violence between prisoners in the common yard may not be domestic violence. In the Commission’s view, the focus ought to be on the duration of the accommodation provided and actual proximity in terms of living conditions. The deciding factor ought to be whether the facility provides accommodation that is a substitute for living in one’s own home for a reasonable period of time.
RECOMMENDATION 11
The definition of a “domestic relationship” in s 562A(3) should be expanded to include:
(a) relationships according to indigenous customs;
(b) relationships between a person and his/her ex-partner’s new partner.
RECOMMENDATION 12
The phrase “other residential facility” in paragraph (d) of the definition of “domestic relationship” in s 562A(3) should be clarified to mean any facility that provides long term accommodation. The relationship between people who live in a residential unit within such a facility should be considered a domestic relationship.
RECOMMENDATION 13
A carer for the purposes of paragraph (e) of the definition of “domestic relationship” in s 562A(3) should be clarified to include a foster carer.
The relationship between the foster carer and the natural parent of the foster child should be considered a domestic relationship.
RECOMMENDATION 14
The amendments in recommendations 11 to 13 should be reflected in the definition of “domestic violence offence” in s 4.
FOOTNOTES
1. Crimes Act s 562AI.
2. Crimes Act s 562AE.
3. Crimes Act s 562AB. There is significant overlap between AVOs and stalking and intimidation. This is dealt with in more detail in Chapter 12.
4. Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association, Submission.
5. NSW Police Service, Submission; Moree consultation; Bourke consultation.
6. NSW Police Service, Submission.
7. NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
8. Orange consultation; Bourke consultation.
9. ACT: Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT). Section 9 defines “domestic violence” as behaviour that causes physical injury or damage to property or behaviour that is a domestic violence offence or is harassing or offensive to the relevant person. A domestic violence offence is defined as being a contravention of a protection order or certain specified offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Criminal Code (Cth) or the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). Northern Territory: Domestic Violence Act 1992 (NT). The Act does not define domestic violence but provides protection for people who are in a “domestic relationship” with one another. Section 3 defines “domestic relationship” widely and s 4 sets out the circumstances when a restraining order will be granted to include where the defendant has assaulted or caused personal injury to the other person or damaged the other person’s property, threatened to do the same, or behaved in a provocative or offensive manner that is likely to cause fear of violence to the other person. Queensland: Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld). Section 11 defines “domestic violence” to mean wilful injury, wilful damage to property, indecent behaviour and a threat to commit the same against a person in a domestic relationship with the defendant. South Australia: Domestic Violence Act 1994 (SA). Section 4 states that a defendant commits domestic violence if the defendant causes personal injury, property damage or loiters, gives offensive material or engages in other conduct that reasonably arouses fear of personal injury, property damage or any significant apprehension of fear. Victoria: Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 (Vic). Section 4 states the circumstances when an intervention order may be made and requires the court to be satisfied that there the person assaulted a family member, caused damage to property, threatened the same or harassed or molested or behaved in an offensive manner toward the family member. The terms “family member”, “spouse”, “child” and “relative” have also been defined in the section.
10. Justices Act 1959 (Tas): Part XA sets out a comprehensive regime with respect to restraining orders in that jurisdiction. Orders are granted under s 106B on the balance of probabilities if the justices are satisfied that a person has caused or threatened to cause personal injury or damage to property and if unrestrained is likely to cause such injury or damage or a threat of the same, or has behaved in a provocative or offensive manner or has stalked the person for whose benefit the application is made.
11. Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 11.
12. Domestic Violence Act 1995 (NZ).
13. Domestic Violence Act 1995 (NZ) s 3 defines “domestic violence” to mean violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship. “Violence” is defined to mean: (a) physical abuse (b) sexual abuse (c) psychological abuse, including but not limited to, (i) intimidation, (ii) harassment (iii) damage to property (iv) in relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in subsection (3).
14. Domestic Violence Act 1995 (NZ) s 3(3) provides that a person psychologically abuses a child if that person: (a) causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or (b) puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring.
15. Domestic Violence Act 1995 (NZ) s 3(3).
16. Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Submission.
17. Domestic Violence Act 1995 (NZ) s 3(5).
18. Campbelltown Benevolent Society Domestic Violence Unit, Consultation; Moree consultation; Orange consultation; WDVCAS Network Meeting (5 March 2003); Redfern Legal Centre and South Sydney Domestic Violence Unit, Consultation.
19. Campbelltown Benevolent Society Domestic Violence Unit, Consultation; WDVCAS Network Meeting (5 March 2003).
20. University of Newcastle Legal Centre, Submission.
21. Domestic Violence Legislation Working Group, Model Domestic Violence Laws (Report, 1999) at 18.
22. Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission; South West Sydney Legal Centre, Submission; Parkes Community Health Centre, Submission.
23. Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
24. Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
25. Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
26. Manly Warringah Women’s Resource Centre, Submission; NSW Women’s Refuge Movement, Submission.
27. Julie Stubbs, Submission based on research by R Hunter and J Stubbs, “Model laws or missed opportunity? Recent proposals concerning domestic violence law reform” (1999) 24(1) Alternative Law Journal 12.
28. Crimes Act s 562AE(1)(b) and s 562AE(1)(c).
29. Campbelltown Benevolent Society Domestic Violence Unit, Consultation.
30. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Jane Wangmann, Submission.
31. NSW, Department for Women, Submission.
32. Crimes Act s 562A(3).
33. NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
34. Gosford consultation.
35. Campbelltown Benevolent Society Domestic Violence Unit, Consultation.
36. AVLICC, Submission.
37. Chamber Magistrates consultation.
38. AVLICC, Submission.
39. AVLICC, Submission.
40. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
41. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
42. Comments contained in correspondence to the Commission dated 20 February 2003.
43. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission; NSW Commission for Children and Young People, Submission; Jane Wangmann, Submission; Newcastle consultation; Wollongong consultation.
44. Julie Stubbs, Submission.
45. South West Sydney Legal Centre, Submission.
46. Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; South West Sydney Legal Centre, Submission.
47. Orange consultation; Gosford consultation.
48. Moree consultation.
49. NSW Police Service, Submission.
50. Orange consultation.
51. Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission; NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission; Jane Wangmann Submission; Young Lawyers Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
52. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission; NSW Women’s Refuge Movement, Submission; Jane Wangmann, Submission.
