In all States of Australia there is a version of the AVO. If you "reasonably fear or apprehend" that a person may be violent toward you, or that you are in any kind of danger, you can take out an AVO against them. Usual conditions are that person A not "approach, intimidate or otherwise harrass" person B, and there is often a distance from person B, such as 100 or 200 metres, beyond which person A is forbidden by law to go.
There is no requirement to provide any evidence at all to explain why or how you have this "reasonable fear or apprehension" when you apply for the order. You simply fill out a form.
THIS WEEK'S ACTUAL EXAMPLE (hard to believe, but really....): you are an elderly lady living alone in an apartment block in suburban Sydney. There are 7 other apartments in the block, mostly rented by other elderly people living alone. Due to ongoing squabbles about trivial matters such as the use of the laundry, noise at night and common property boundaries, "tensions" are running high and there have been a number of "heated" arguments (insofar as an argument between octogenarians can be heated). There has been no violence, and no threats of violence, and you do not feel scared or threatened in any way. But after a visit by the police, called by one of the tenants after an argument over the clothesline, Tenant A (82 years old) takes out an AVO against a Tenant B (80 year old), apparently on the advice of the police. Tenant B, a good friend of yours, responds with a counter-AVO. You voice your support for Tenant B at a block meeting called to sort out the ongoing problems (which neither Tenant A nor Tenant B can attend due to the respective AVO's having 100 metre restrictions on approaching each other). Tenant C, whom you suspect doesn't like you much, slaps an AVO on you for supporting Tenant B (it must be that, you believe, because you haven't spoken to her in 4 years). The AVO says you cannot come within 100 metres of Tenant C. But she lives right next door! Tenant C contacts you via her friend, Tenant D, and says you had better not use any facilities in the building, because they are all within 100 metres of her apartment, and she will be calling the police if she sees you anywhere within the buiilding. Tenants E and F visit and say that Tenants A, C and D have now taken out AVO's against them as well, and they have responded with counter AVO's.
So, if all conditions of the various AVO's and counter-AVO's are strictly abided by, nobody in the building can go anywhere or do anything. In fact, everyone in the building is breaking the law and under threat of arrest just by sitting in their apartment watching Days of Our Lives...
If you need advice about what can happen if you breach an AVO, just ask Matthew Newton....
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS SCENARIO? (AS IF THAT WASN'T OBVIOUS...)
1 It is far too easy to get an AVO, simple as that.
This results in the majority of AVO's being taken out for malicious reasons rather than out of genuine "fear and apprehension".
COURT DUDE'S SOLUTION
Ensure that the police actually investigate a person's claims they need an AVO before allowing them to file an application for one, and provide serious penalties for false or malicious requests. Police should not recommend an AVO application can proceed unless they are satisfied there is a reasonable chance it woould be upheld at a proper hearing of the evidence.
Seems pretty ^%%$$#ing obvious, doesn't it?!
COURT DUDE STATISTIC - in NSW in 2009 alone, one person in every 445 had an AVO granted against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment