9.1 An AVO is an order of the court. The prevention of domestic and personal violence is a matter of public interest and not just a private matter. Consequently, an AVO cannot be varied or revoked by the parties without the endorsement of the court. The applicant can, however, withdraw from proceedings before a final order is made. There is some concern that such withdrawal may be due to fear of, or coercion by, the defendant.
9.2 This chapter considers the special circumstances in which an order may be varied or revoked. It also considers how best to balance the undesirability of overpowering the will of an applicant to withdraw, against the need for continued protection against violence.
VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF ORDERS
9.3 An applicant, a defendant or a police officer can apply to have an AVO varied or revoked.1 A police officer can apply only if the initial complaint was made by the police officer. Being an order of the court, an AVO cannot be varied at will. Parties must go to court to seek approval to vary or revoke an AVO. Conduct where both parties consent without the court’s approval may amount to a breach.
9.4 The court may vary or revoke an order “if satisfied that in all the circumstances it is proper to do so”.2 The court can reject an application for variation if it is satisfied that there has been no change in the circumstances and the application is in the nature of an appeal.3 An AVO can be varied by extending or reducing its duration, or by changing, adding to or deleting the conditions in the order.4 The variation or revocation will only take effect after the defendant has been served with notice of the application.5
Views in submissions
General issues
9.5 It is important that the decision to vary or revoke an order reflects the best interests of all persons in need of protection. It has been suggested that courts do not automatically revoke orders unless it is appropriate.6 However, the issues are complex as it is difficult to ascertain whether the applications for variation or revocation are being prompted by coercion.7
9.6 It appears that some people may be unaware that they can apply to have the order varied if circumstances change.8 As stated above, when variation is not sought and the parties merely consent to vary the order, the police sometimes take action against both parties for breaching the AVO.9 Thus, information on how to vary or revoke an AVO is crucial to all parties.10
9.7 As discussed previously11 care needs to be taken when varying or revoking orders where children are included with the applicant, as the children are vulnerable and are often left unprotected. Submissions suggest that an additional criterion needs to be considered where children are included on the victim’s application, stating that the court should only approve variation or revocation after giving consideration to the safety of the children, particularly where the defendant resumes living in the family home.12
9.8 Care must also be taken to ensure that court processes and resource issues do not act as a deterrent to parties wanting to make an application for variation or revocation.13 The NSW Police submission expressed the view that where an application to vary is made, there should be a requirement to inform the police regardless of whether the original complaint was police initiated.14
9.9 It was also suggested that s 562F should be amended to provide that an application to vary or revoke an AVO is a complaint for the purposes of Part 15A.15 Difficulties have arisen in the past as some Magistrates do not feel that such an application is a complaint, which has implications so far as appeals are concerned.
9.10 The view was also expressed that it should also be possible to apply for revocation after an AVO has expired. This would then facilitate a revocation of the firearms prohibition if the defendant plans to enter the army or police service, after 6 or so years with no threats of violence.
When can variation be sought?
9.11 Currently, the court can refuse to accept an application to vary or revoke an AVO if there has been no change in the circumstances on which the original AVO was based, and if the court considers that the application is in the nature of an appeal against the original AVO.16 However, it has been suggested that it should be possible to seek variation not only when circumstances have changed but also where the existing order has proved unworkable or ineffective even though circumstances have not changed. The Commission was told of a case where an AVO restricted a defendant’s access to the family home even though there had been a longstanding agreement between the parties that the defendant cared for the children while the applicant was at work. The parties were not consulted on the suitability of such a condition being included in the AVO. The circumstances had not changed between the time of making the order and applying for variation, and therefore no variation was ordered by the court. However, the order was unworkable given the particular circumstances and needs of the family.17
Who can seek variation or revocation?
The defendant
9.12 Currently both the applicant and the defendant can seek variation and revocation. However, it has been suggested that the defendant should be precluded from being able to have the order varied or revoked.18 Others have suggested that the defendant should be able to apply for variation or revocation19 only if she or he consented to the order20 and circumstances have changed21 and an injustice would otherwise be created.22 Otherwise, the view was expressed that an application to vary or revoke initiated by a defendant would amount to further harassment of the applicant.23
9.13 Another view was that a defendant should only be able to seek to vary or revoke an AVO where he or she consented to it being granted, but without understanding the implications of the order.24 Otherwise, such an attempt to vary or revoke should be considered to be an appeal.25 It has also been suggested that in circumstances where the applicant and defendant have reconciled, it is unrealistic to expect the applicant to apply to have the order varied or revoked.26
9.14 Some submissions consider that, where the AVO has been contested, the defendant should be able to apply for variation, but not revocation.27 Others disagree, and consider that the defendant should be able to apply to vary or revoke where he or she consented and where the hearing was contested as circumstances may change.28 However, there should first be a hearing to determine whether leave should be granted to make the application to vary or revoke the order. This would offer an added protection for the applicant to prevent the defendant using the courts to “legally harass” the applicant.29
9.15 The value of a presumption against revoking or varying an order if the application is made by the defendant against the applicant’s will, was also canvassed in submissions.30
The police
9.16 There appears to be some inconsistency between s 562F(2) and s 562F(4B) over whether or not a police officer must apply to vary or revoke an AVO involving a child. Section 562F(2) states that where the person in need of protection is under 16 years of age, the police must make the application to vary or revoke. However, s 562F(4B) states that where an AVO covers more than one person, an application by one of the persons in need of protection to vary or revoke the order may affect the other persons if they are under 16, regardless of whether police make the application. It is necessary that this provision be clarified to determine whether or not the application to vary or revoke an AVO for a child under 16 must be made by a police officer.31
9.17 There is also a view that where an application is made to vary or revoke an order which involves a child under 16, the police officer who handled the matter must be notified and have input into the court process to ensure that the court is apprised of all evidence regarding the needs of the child.32 Often the real reasons for the desire to revoke or vary an AVO may not be apparent and police involvement in the matter may add an element of independence.33
9.18 Many submissions expressed the view that police should be able to apply for variation regardless of who made the initial complaint, if they believe their intervention is warranted in the circumstances.34 Some of the reasons given for this view were that police may uncover information which cannot be immediately conveyed to the applicant, or the applicant may have gone into hiding, or be injured.35 It has also been suggested that community response to AVOs often influences the police response to events and calls for assistance. Thus, where an AVO with an exclusion order is frequently breached, the Police should be able to seek instructions on its variation from the parties and approach the Court accordingly.36
9.19 It has also been suggested that private applications to vary or revoke should be brought to the attention of the police (if the original complaint was made by the police on behalf of an applicant) as this would makes it clear that the applicant still has police support.37
The Commission’s views
9.20 The Commission believes that the capacity to apply for variation of an order is of great benefit to all parties. While there should be more education about the circumstances in which an order may be varied, the Commission is of the view that if an order becomes unworkable, then a variation would be possible under a broad interpretation of the current provisions, since that in itself would be a change of circumstance.
9.21 Submissions expressed a range of views on whether the defendant should be allowed to apply for variation or revocation. In the Commission’s view, this is ultimately a matter for the court to decide. To deny the defendant the capacity to apply for variation would amount to pre-judging the veracity of the defendant’s application. There may be cogent reasons why a defendant may seek to vary or revoke an AVO. Consequently, the Commission is in favour of retaining the current provisions permitting all parties to apply for variation or revocation.
9.22 In addition to the current provisions, however, the Commission has recommended that authorised third parties should also be allowed to make applications for an AVO on behalf of employees and people with a disability, or people under Guardianship Orders.38 It follows that those third parties should also be able to make applications for variation or revocation of those orders on behalf of the person for whom they made the application in the first instance.
9.23 So far as police applications are concerned, the Commission is of the view that police should be empowered to apply to vary or revoke an order regardless of who made the initial complaint. This recommendation is consistent with others in this Report which empower the police to make or proceed with a complaint without the consent of the applicant in certain circumstances.39 The argument against this recommendation is that the applicant is denied control over his or her welfare, with this being another form of power exercised over the applicant. However, the Commission is satisfied that the benefit of affording protection to applicants far outweighs the perceived risk of police intrusion.
9.24 There are also some issues that require statutory amendment for the sake of clarity. The District Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals where a complaint made by an applicant has been dismissed by a Local Court or the Children’s Court.40 Section 562F needs to be amended to provide specifically that an application to vary or revoke an AVO is a complaint for the purpose of Part 15A, so as to clarify the situation regarding appeals.
9.25 The Commission also agrees that parties should be entitled to apply for revocation of an AVO after it has expired. In the absence of such a revocation, a firearms licence will continue to be either suspended or revoked even after the AVO has expired.41 The Commission suggests that a reasonable time limit, for example, six months, should be apply between the date of expiry of the AVO and the application for revocation as a safety net for the victim. The application for revocation should be made by both parties to satisfy the Magistrate that the applicant has not been coerced.
9.26 The Commission agrees that any inconsistency between s 562F(2) and s 562F(4B) requires clarification. In recognition of the need to protect the interests of children, the Commission recommends that the relevant sections be amended to state that a police officer must be involved in all applications where one of the protected persons is a child under 16 years of age if the variation of an order is intended to affect the child.
RECOMMENDATION 35
Section 562F(1) should be amended to provide that police can apply to vary an order regardless of who made the initial complaint.
RECOMMENDATION 36
Either of the parties, or an authorised third party, should be able to make an application for variation.
RECOMMENDATION 37
Section 562F(4B) and (4C) should be amended to require that a police officer must be the applicant where one of the protected persons is a child under 16 years of age if the application for variation or revocation affects that child.
RECOMMENDATION 38
Section 562F should provide that an application to vary an AVO is considered to be a complaint for the purposes of Part 15A.
RECOMMENDATION 39
An AVO should be able to be revoked after it has expired where:
(a) the application is made jointly by both parties;
(b) a period of 6 months has lapsed since the expiry of the AVO; and
(c) the court considers it is appropriate to do so.
WITHDRAWAL FROM PROCEEDINGS
9.27 Applicants can withdraw from proceedings before a final order is made. If the police apply for an order on behalf of a person in need of protection, only the police can withdraw the application.42
9.28 It is estimated that over 40% of ADVO applications are withdrawn or dismissed before the final hearing.43 As noted in the Commission’s Discussion Paper,44 this figure is open to a number of interpretations and may occur for a number of reasons: some may be linked to the defendant, while some may be due to structural defects within the AVO process.
Reasons for withdrawal: views in submissions
9.29 A view expressed in one of the submissions was that “process factors” are a significant factor in causing applicants to withdraw their applications.45 The following factors may be of particular significance:
- numerous adjournments;
- lack of service of complaints and orders;
- attitudes to domestic violence conveyed by the police and the magistrates;
- the lack of safety measures at local courts which leave some women feeling unsafe and intimidated by the defendant;
- lack of action on breach of an interim order; and
- the use of a cross application to negotiate mutual withdrawal.46
9.30 It has been suggested that the nature of domestic violence is such that victims in violent relationships rarely leave the relationship and stay away the first time. Often they apply for and withdraw or vary an AVO many times before finally proceeding with the action.47 Fear of repercussions from the defendant, and lack of action on breaches, appear to be the two main factors that exacerbate the reluctance to pursue an action.48
9.31 In some cases, applicants may be pressured to withdraw an AVO by the defendant. The Commission was told of cases where applicants were forced to go to Chamber Magistrates with to withdraw their complaint.49
9.32 It was also suggested that, for many ADVOs applicants, fear of going through the court process is the main reason why applications are withdrawn. However, withdrawals may be deterred if court attendance was a pre-requisite for pursuing and withdrawing an application.50 It would also enable courts to keep better data about why withdrawals happen.51
9.33 The Local Court is of the view that an explanation for the high rate of withdrawal of APVO applications is the intervention of mediation after the commencement of court proceedings. As discussed in the context of mediation,52 the Local Court supports the idea that parties should be referred to mediation earlier.53
Views on possible changes to the withdrawal process
9.34 Some are of the view that the current provisions need no change.54 They oppose specifying criteria for withdrawal of an AVO in the legislation55 because legislative criteria may prevent withdrawal and further compromise an applicant’s safety.56
9.35 Others have suggested that it would be beneficial if certain criteria had to be satisfied and there was a consistent process across all courts to avoid the currently haphazard process which depends greatly on the views of particular Magistrates.57
9.36 Others favour court attendance by an applicant so that the reasons for withdrawal can be explained.58 Withdrawal should not be a mere “rubber stamping of the complainant’s wishes”.59 It should require the Magistrate to be of the opinion that “the person in need of protection wishes to withdraw the complaint in the exercise of his or her own free will, and that undue influence, pressure or intimidation has not been brought to bear on that decision”.60 The court should be satisfied that police support the withdrawal, that the circumstances have changed and the applicant is no longer in danger,61 or that the applicant has obtained independent advice.62
9.37 If the court is concerned that the application is a result of threat or coercion, it would be appropriate for the matter to be adjourned with a recommendation from the Magistrate that the applicant seek independent advice.63 The Commission has been informed of situations where Magistrates have refused to allow an AVO to be withdrawn because they believed the applicant had been threatened or pressured into seeking withdrawal.64
9.38 Some have suggested that an AVO should only be able to be withdrawn where the circumstances which gave rise to the original AVO have changed.65 This test is similar to that regarding applications to revoke or vary an AVO.
9.39 Another suggestion was that, where criminal charges are laid concurrently with the granting of an AVO, the AVO should not be able to be withdrawn until those charges have been resolved.66
Withdrawal following mediation
9.40 Community Justice Centres (“CJCs”) have raised a concern regarding the procedure for withdrawal of an APVO matter following mediation.67 Currently, the parties consent to a copy of the mediation agreement being sent to the court, which is then attached to the court file. Parties also complete a form which states that they wish to withdraw from court action and undertake to cover their own costs. This is sent with the copy of the agreement.
9.41 This form has no real legal status and the actions on the APVO are not actually withdrawn until the next court date. Usually this is no more then three weeks although it may be as long as four months. Clients are advised by CJCs to check with the court to see if they are required to attend court. Local Courts usually advise the client to do so.
9.42 CJCs have advised the Commission that problems occur as a result:
1. The client has worked hard at resolving and then moving on from the dispute. Returning to court to advise they do not wish to continue with the APVO application is stressful, reminds them of why they felt the need for the APVO in the past, and may require them to lose time from work which may result in a rekindling of feelings of anger and resentment with the other person for being forced to do this.
2. Some clients choose to take the risk of not appearing and then having the matter simply taken off the list. For the most part this seems to work. However, there have been situations where one client has felt that the matter has been resolved and the other party changes their mind and proceeds with the application without the other party being aware of this. By not attending court clients risk having orders made in their absence. This can result in costly and distressing appeals processes.
9.43 CJCs suggest the introduction of a more streamlined process for withdrawing from court action which should occur before the next court date.
9.44 A period of one week should apply between agreeing to withdraw and the withdrawal taking effect. This would allow parties the opportunity to change their minds if it becomes immediately apparent that the matter is not resolved. If either party notifies the court within that period that they wish to continue with the application then the court should notify the other party as such and that they will need to attend court.
9.45 It is not anticipated that this will occur very often as feedback from clients indicates that the mediation has usually substantially resolved the situation.68
Should police be able to proceed against the wishes of the applicant?
9.46 This is a controversial issue that was hotly contested at consultations as it involves complex policy issues. The issues are similar to those raised and discussed in the context of whether police should be able to take out an AVO without the consent of the applicant.69
9.47 On one hand, there is the need to protect people from real threats of imminent violence. Applicants may want to withdraw because the threat of repercussions from the defendant is worse than the fear of not having the protection afforded by the AVO.70 Police find this frustrating, particularly where they attend repeat incidents of domestic violence. In situations which repeatedly come to police attention, there is a significant risk that the defendant may use threats and/or violence to ensure the applicant does not proceed with the application. Developing ways to ensure that applicants are not threatened or coerced into withdrawing could have the effect of decreasing withdrawal rates. It may be useful to include withdrawal criteria for use by the courts aimed to determine whether the applicant fears reprisals if the application is heard, or has been coerced into withdrawing the application.71
9.48 The Commission also heard that in some cases, when police have acted, they have found the applicant is grateful that the decision whether or not to pursue the matter is taken out of his or her hands.72
9.49 On the other hand, there is validity in the argument that proceeding without the applicant’s consent denies the applicant the right to make decisions about his or her own welfare. This can be seen as another form of power and control being exercised over the applicant.73 Many victims of domestic violence become “experts at managing and surviving the violence they experience”. As noted above, some decide to withdraw for fear of further reprisal from the defendant if they do not withdraw, and they are best placed to determine whether proceeding with the application will actually endanger their safety.74
9.50 Some submissions are of the view that, ultimately, if an applicant who has been informed of all the options wants to withdraw, it seems appropriate that their wishes be respected.75 There is a need to question the use of an AVO brought against the wishes of the applicant.76 If the AVO continues against the applicant’s wishes, and the defendant knows this, it may be virtually meaningless since the defendant will ensure or know that breaches will not be reported by the applicant.77
9.51 While most applications brought by the police will be withdrawn at the direction of the person in need of protection, the Commission has heard that some prosecutors proceed regardless.78 This may occur where police believe that the applicant is at significant risk or has been pressured into withdrawing.79 Some submissions have suggested that it would be beneficial for police to be able to proceed in certain circumstances without the consent of the applicant (for example, the police would have to be satisfied that assault charges have been laid, or violence has occurred or there is a significant threat of violence),80 although those circumstances would have to be carefully monitored as they may be open to abuse.81 Some submissions are of the view that acting without the consent of the applicant is justified in certain circumstances since protection against violence is a matter of public policy rather than a private matter.82 Others have suggested that it should occur only in circumstances where the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is an imminent threat of violence.83 It has also been suggested that in withdrawal proceedings, the onus should be placed on the police prosecutor to voice any concerns he or she may have about the withdrawal application.84
The Commission’s views
9.52 In the Commission’s view there are two major issues of concern:
1. whether legislative criteria should be imposed to determine whether or not parties may withdraw proceedings;
2. whether the police should be empowered to proceed with a complaint without the applicant’s consent.
9.53 In approaching both these issues, the paramount consideration ought to be the safety and protection of the person in need of protection and any children who may be affected by the circumstances. This consideration then needs to be balanced against the competing issue of the extent to which overriding the wishes of the applicant who seeks to withdraw may be justified.
9.54 Some submissions and consultations have pointed out that appearing in court causes anxiety to many applicants. If it is required that an applicant must appear in court to withdraw an application, this may prevent some withdrawals, since a court appearance would be necessary whether the applicant proceeds with or withdraws the application. A requirement to appear in court will also provide an opportunity to the Magistrate to satisfy him or herself of the genuineness of the reasons for withdrawal.
9.55 However, where violence has been prevalent, or is imminent, the Commission believes there is a need for the police to proceed with an action without the consent of the applicant, and indeed against his or her wishes. In the Commission’s view, whether or not to proceed with an action requires the applicant to consider the same fears and issues that were considered at first when deciding whether or not to make a complaint. In considering whether the police should make a complaint without the consent of the applicant, the Commission is convinced that public safety warrants such intervention where violence has occurred, or where there is a significant threat of violence, or where the victim is a person with an intellectual disability who has no guardian. The Commission is guided by the same criteria in deciding whether to empower the police to proceed with a complaint without the consent of the applicant.
9.56 The Commission also agrees with the suggestion made by CJCs to introduce a more streamlined process for withdrawing APVO applications following mediation. Rather than require the parties to attend court to formalise the settlement by withdrawing the action, the Commission sees value in prescribing a cooling off period of 7 days from the date of the agreement reaching the court with no additional requirement for the parties to attend court.
RECOMMENDATION 40
Police must proceed with an application, where:
(a) violence has occurred or there is a history of violence;
(b) there is a significant threat of violence whether communicated or not ;
(c) there are other grounds that give rise to a substantial risk of violence; or
(d) the victim is a person with an intellectual disability who has no guardian,
whether or not the victim wishes to withdraw an application.
RECOMMENDATION 41
An applicant seeking withdrawal must attend court to make the application in order to satisfy the court that it is a genuine application (except in exceptional circumstances).
RECOMMENDATION 42
Where a matter is mediated, the withdrawal of that matter shall take effect after a cooling off period of 7 days from the date of the agreement reaching the court with no additional requirement for the parties to attend court.
FOOTNOTES
1. Crimes Act s 562F.
2. Crimes Act s 562F(3).
3. Crimes Act s 562F(4A).
4. Crimes Act s 562F(4).
5. Crimes Act s 562F(6).
6. Graham Johnson Magistrate, Submission.
7. NSW, Department for Women, Submission.
8. Bourke consultation.
9. Moree consultation.
10. The need for more information to be provided to parties is discussed in Chapter 3, particularly para 3.53.
11. See para 6.28-6.29 and Recommendation 19 for further discussion regarding the need to have separate AVOs taken out for children to avoid the risk of leaving them unprotected when an adult order to which the children are joined is varied or revoked.
12. NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Newcastle consultation; Wollongong consultation; NSW Police Service, Submission.
13. Julie Stubbs, Submission.
14. NSW Police Service, Submission.
15. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
16. Crimes Act s 562F(4A).
17. WDVCAS Network meeting (5 March 2003).
18. Comments contained in correspondence to the Law Reform Commission dated 20 February 2003. See also Manly Warringah Women’s Resource Centre, Submission.
19. Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission; NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Intellectual Disability Rights Service Inc, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
20. NSW Police Service, Submission.
21. Julie Stubbs, Submission.
22. Blue Mountains Community Legal Centre, Submission.
23. Blue Mountains Community Legal Centre, Submission.
24. Manly Warringah Women’s Resource Centre, Submission.
25. NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Intellectual Disability Rights Service Inc, Submission.
26. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
27. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
28. Graham Johnson, Magistrate, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
29. This is similar to Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 49; Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission.
30. NSW, Department for Women, Submission.
31. Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission.
32. Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission.
33. Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission.
34. AVLICC, Submission; Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission; NSW, Department for Women, Submission; NSW Police Service, Submission; Manly Warringah Women’s Resource Centre, Submission; Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Graham Johnson, Magistrate, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
35. Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission.
36. Mt Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre, Submission.
37. Erin’s Place for Women and Children, Submission.
38. See Recommendation 18 and preceding discussion at para 6.2-6.21.
39. See Recommendation 20 and preceding discussion at para 6.39-6.44 and 6.46-6.47.
40. Crimes Act s 562W.
41. See para 10.4-10.10 and Recommendation 43 for a discussion on the revocation or suspension of a firearms licence.
42. The Local Courts Practice and Procedure Manual advises that people who want to withdraw proceedings can discuss their concerns with the police officer who made the application, the police prosecutor or the police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer.
43. Figures provided by Local Court NSW, to the Commission on a confidential basis.
44. See DP 45 para 4.4 and para 8.17.
45. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
46. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
47. Parkes Community Health Centre, Submission.
48. Orange consultation.
49. Mt Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre, Submission.
50. AVLICC, Submission.
51. AVLICC, Submission.
52. See para 5.13-5.15.
53. Local Court NSW, Submission.
54. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
55. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
56. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
57. Legal Aid NSW, Submission; Newcastle consultation.
58. AVLICC, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
59. Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission.
60. Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission; Local Court NSW, Submission.
61. NSW, Department for Women, Submission; Local Court NSW, Submission.
62. Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
63. Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
64. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
65. Mt Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre, Submission.
66. WDVCAS Network meeting (5 March 2003).
67. See NSW, Community Justice Centres, Submission. While the issue of the role of mediation in the determination of APVO disputes is discussed in Chapter 5, this issue is a procedural one relating more to withdrawal and so is discussed here.
68. NSW, Community Justice Centres, Submission.
69. See para 6.39-6.44 and para 6.46-6.47.
70. Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission.
71. NSW Police Service, Submission.
72. Newcastle consultation; Wollongong consultation.
73. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Jane Wangmann, Submission; Wollongong consultation.
74. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission; Jane Wangmann, Submission.
75. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
76. Jane Wangmann, Submission.
77. Wollongong consultation.
78. Domestic Violence Advocacy Service and Women’s Legal Resources Centre, Submission.
79. Blue Mountains Community Legal Centre, Submission; Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
80. AVLICC, Submission; NSW, Department for Women, Submission.
81. Graham Johnson, Magistrate, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission.
82. AVLICC, Submission; Hawkesbury Nepean Community Legal Centre, Submission; Legal Aid NSW, Submission; Newcastle consultation.
83. Law Society of NSW, Criminal Law Committee, Submission.
84. Chief Magistrate, Local Court of NSW, Submission.
