Australia
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Personal Safety, Australia, 2023, ABS cat no. 4906.0 (2016).
This release presents information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 2021-22 Personal Safety Survey (PSS).
The PSS collected information from persons aged 18 years and over about the nature and extent of their experiences of violence, including detailed information about experiences of:
•
physical and sexual violence
•
violence, emotional abuse, and economic abuse by a cohabiting partner
•
stalking
•
sexual harassment
•
childhood abuse and witnessing parenting violence before the age of 15
This publication presents high level prevalence statistics and changes over time for key violence types collected in the survey.
Women | Men |
|---|---|
Prevalence since the age of 15 | |
2 in 5 women experienced violence (39%) | 2 in 5 men experienced violence (43%) |
1 in 5 women experienced sexual violence (22%) | 1 in 16 men experienced sexual violence (6.1%) |
1 in 3 women experienced physical violence (31%) | 2 in 5 men experienced physical violence (42%) |
1 in 5 women experienced stalking (20%) | 1 in 15 men experienced stalking (6.8%) |
Prevalence of intimate partner and family member violence since the age of 15 | |
1 in 4 women experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member (27%) | 1 in 8 men experienced violence by an intimate partner or family member (12%) |
1 in 12 women experienced violence by a family member (8.1%) | 1 in 17 men experienced violence by a family member (5.9%) |
1 in 4 women experienced violence by an intimate partner (23%) | 1 in 14 men experienced violence by an intimate partner (7.3%) |
1 in 11 women experienced violence by a boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (9.3%) | 1 in 44 men experienced violence by a boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (2.3%*) |
1 in 6 women experienced cohabitating partner violence (17%) | 1 in 18 men experienced cohabiting partner violence (5.5%) |
1 in 4 women experienced cohabiting partner emotional abuse (23%) | 1 in 7 men experienced cohabiting partner emotional abuse (14%) |
1 in 6 women experienced cohabiting partner economic abuse (16%) | 1 in 13 men experienced cohabiting economic abuse (7.8%) |
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024) ‘Family, domestic and sexual violence: Stalking and surveillance’.
The resource draws together the research about stalking and surveillance in the context of family, domestic and sexual violence.
See section: What do we know?
‘As with other forms of gender-based violence, the majority of victims of stalking and surveillance, are women. This can partially be attributed to gender-based power inequalities, rigid gender norms and gender-based discrimination.
The National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) is a nationally representative survey that measures community understanding and attitudes towards violence against women and gender inequality. The 2021 NCAS found that most respondents (89%) recognised in-person stalking as always or usually violence against women, but less respondents (83%) recognised electronic stalking as always or usually a form of violence. Almost 9 in 10 (89%) respondents were aware it is a criminal offence to share an intimate picture of an ex-partner on social media without their consent ’.
A study on community attitudes towards stalking in Victoria found that men were more likely to strongly endorse beliefs and attitudes that minimise the severity of stalking, normalise the behaviour as romantic and assign blame to the victim ’.
This resource highlights risk factors for stalking and surveillance and provides an expansive overview of available data.
Bagshaw, Dale, et al, ‘Reshaping Responses to Domestic Violence’ (Final Report, University of South Australia and Partnerships Against Domestic Violence, April 2000).
This Australian research used a variety of methods including an anonymous ‘phone-in’ and focus groups. 102 women who were victims/survivors of domestic violence participated in the phone-in. According to the study authors, some of the callers reported ‘intense levels of surveillance, which leave women without autonomy.’ This experience was exacerbated for women living in rural and remote areas, especially on isolated properties. Strategies of surveillance included (p24):
•
‘not allowing the woman to obtain a driver’s licence or paid employment,
•
constant telephone calls to check whereabouts, timing the distances to be travelled (for example, home from work) and/or
•
preventing the woman from closing the toilet door.’
The writers commented that callers reported that ‘the law was not seen to take threats seriously and placed an unreasonable onus on the victim to provide dates or other evidence of violence, requiring a level of documentation that is generally impossible for a woman living in a state of constant surveillance’ (p46).
Douglas, Heather, Bridget Harris & Molly Dragiewicz, (2019) "Technology-facilitated Domestic and Family Violence: Women’s Experiences" The British Journal of Criminology 59(3):551-70.
This article analyses data drawn from interviews undertaken with 55 domestic and family violence survivors in Brisbane, and outlines survivors’ experiences of technology-facilitated domestic and family violence. During the interviews, participants were asked about their experiences of DFV and their engagement with legal processes. Participants provided many examples of technology being used by perpetrators to isolate, stalk and emotionally abuse them and to create a sense of the perpetrator being omnipresent. Although several women used technology to document the abuse, to improve their safety and to stop the abuse, some also pointed to their lack of understanding or skill with respect to technology compared to their abuser. The survivor accounts demonstrate the need to study the context, meaning, motives and outcomes of technology-facilitated activity.
Dragiewicz, Molly, Woodlock, Delanie, Salter, Michael, & Harris, Bridget 'What’s Mum's Password?': Australian Mothers' Perceptions of Children's Involvement in Technology-Facilitated Coercive Control. (2022) 37(1), Journal of Family Violence, 137-149.
This article is based on semi-structured interviews with those 12 mothers. The accounts show how children were directly abused via technology, such father impersonating a child to speak to his daughter and another father calling his daughter “a sneaky bitch” when she refused to provide her mother’s password. Participants recounted how children were drawn into technology-facilitated abuse aimed at the mothers, for example by being asked to provide passwords to abusers or show abusers around their new house via FaceTime. Abuse often escalated at parental separation as abusers lost some avenues of control but gained access to others.
Flynn, A., Powell, A., & Hindes, S. (2021). Technology-facilitated abuse: A survey of support services stakeholders (Research report, 02/2021). ANROWS
Survey of 338 support service workers. The study found that in the experience of support services workers, foremost comprising domestic and sexual violence services, TFA is a significant and gendered problem with victims facing significant impacts and barriers to help-seeking. Support services workers described TFA as a growing issue for their clients, particularly with the ever-expanding and vast landscape of digital technologies. However, they also identified that there are significant obstacles to helping clients who are experiencing TFA, and expressed concerns over the adequacy of current responses. These include difficulty in finding up-to-date information, TFA not being taken seriously by police and courts, and inadequate responses from technology providers. Support services workers called for these key areas to be improved. They also identified areas in which they need additional support and training, including responding to perpetrators, meeting the needs of diverse clients and strategies for preventing TFA. Overall, the vital, practice-based knowledge from support services workers in this study has allowed us to demonstrate tangible ways in which we can more effectively disrupt, prevent and respond to TFA.
Harris, Anita, Nikki Honey, Kim Webster, Kristen Diemer and Violeta Politoff, ‘Young Australians’ attitudes to violence against women – Findings from the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women Survey for respondents 16-24 years’ (2015).
The minimisation of technology-facilitated stalking and abuse is reflected in the Australian 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women Survey. In this survey more than 17,500 telephone interviews were undertaken to compare the attitudes of 16-24 year olds to 35-64 years olds. The study found the majority of young people agreed that tracking a female partner by electronic means without consent was serious. Youth males rated it at an overall seriousness level of 80% while youth females rated it at 87%. This is compared to adult men who rated it at 81% with their female counterparts rating it at 90%. The study also found 52% of youth males and 40% of youth females thought non-consensual electronic tracking of a female partner was acceptable to some degree, compared to 41% of adult males and 29% of adult females.
Harris, Bridget and Delanie Woodlock, Spaceless violence: Women’s experiences of technology-facilitated domestic violence in regional, rural and remote areas. Trends and Issues paper 644, (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2022).
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 13 victim–survivors.
The participants detailed the way that technology was incorporated into perpetrators’ control and intimidation tactics, often extending and exacerbating the abuse these women experienced. When women separated from the perpetrator, his use of technology often escalated. As opportunities to engage in physical abuse were limited, technology enabled the perpetrator to still reach into the victim’s private sphere. While digital coercive control is spaceless, the space in which the woman and the perpetrator are physically located matters. The participants in this research emphasised that rural, remote and regional locations shaped both the manifestations and impacts of abuse, as well as the barriers they experienced when seeking help.
Powell, Anastasia and Nicola Henry, Digital Harassment and Abuse of Adult Australians – A Summary Report (2015).
Researchers at RMIT University and La Trobe University examined the extent, nature and impacts of digital harassment and abuse, as well as technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment. 3000 Australian adults (aged 18 to 54) were surveyed about their experiences of these forms of abuse. Key findings include:
•
Overall, men and women were just as likely to report experiencing digital harassment and abuse
•
Women were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment
•
Young adults aged 18 to 24 were more likely than any other age groups to experience digital harassment and abuse
•
Non-heterosexual identifying adults were significantly more likely to report being the target of both gender and sexuality based harassment
•
1 in 10 Australians reported that someone had posted online or sent onto others a nude or semi-nude image of them without their permission
•
Women overwhelmingly experienced digital harassment and abuse from male perpetrators
•
Men experienced digital harassment and abuse equally from males and females
•
Women were significantly more likely than men to be ‘very or extremely upset’ by the digital harassment and abuse they experienced
•
More women than men reported that they told the person to stop, changed their online details or profile settings, left the site or turned off their device, as a result of their experience
Sun, Charissa, ‘Technology-Facilitated Stalking and Abuse: Putting Our Legal Framework to the Test’ (2015) (June) The Law Society Journal of New South Wales 78.
This article reviews the NSW legal response to what is referred to as ‘technology assisted stalking and abuse.’ It includes helpful examples of this behaviour:
•
making numerous and unwanted calls to a person’s mobile phone;
•
sending threatening and/or abusive messages (text messaging, Whatsapp, Snapchat, facebook messaging, Twitter);
•
hacking into a person’s email or social media account to discover information about them;
•
hacking into a person’s email or social media account to impersonate them and send abusive messages to family/friends of that person;
•
using surveillance software and devices to spy on or stalk a person (eg placing a GPS tracker on a person’s car, placing a video camera in and around a person’s home to monitor both the person and other people who may come to the house); and
•
sharing, or threatening to share, intimate pictures of a person.
Woodlock, Delanie, ‘The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking’ (2017) 23(5) Violence Against Women 584-602.
This study discusses the increasing prevalence of technology in domestic violence and stalking (p 585). The results demonstrate that technology, including phones, computers, tablets, and social media, is frequently used in intimate partner violence (p 590). The use of technology creates an impression of the perpetrator’s omnipresence, for example through constant text messages or phone calls (pp 592, 598), and can isolate (pp 594-6, 598), humiliate and punish the victim (pp 596-7, 599). A particular threat of technology is the sharing of sexualised content online to humiliate victims (p 599).
Women’s Health East, Women online: The intersection of technology, gender and sexism (Melbourne: Women’s Health East, 2018).
The paper examines the intersection of technology, gender and sexism, as well as the prevalence and impacts of cyber violence against women and girls. The authors describe the key drivers of violence, such as gender inequality, and how these interact with the online platforms to create cyber violence. The paper explores ‘life online’ esp, pp8-12.
This report explores the 2020 findings of a national Australian survey with 442 frontline DV practitioners about the use of technology by perpetrators.
Almost all survey respondents (99.3%) stated that they had clients who had experienced technology facilitated stalking and abuse.
The type of technology most commonly used by perpetrators was text messaging, with two thirds (60.7%) of practitioners seeing this ‘all the time’. Text messages could be used in various ways, from constantly sending messages to victims-survivors, to carefully worded messages that perpetrators would use to cause victim-survivors fear.
Smartphones were the next most commonly used technology (36.1% seeing this ‘all the time’). Facebook was also reported to be used frequently by perpetrators to abuse (35.1% noting this as occurring ‘all the time’).
Respondents noted they were seeing GPS tracking apps used ‘all the time’ (16.2%) and ‘often’ (45.6%). Participants noted that because GPS tracking apps such as “Find My” are preloaded on iPhones, that women were often obligated to turn them on, or else they were seen by the perpetrator as having something to hide.
FaceTime was seen as being used to perpetrate technology-facilitated abuse, with almost half seeing this ‘often’ (42.6%).
iCloud was also noted as commonly used by perpetrators to stalk and place women under surveillance, with almost half (42.2%) observing this ‘often’.
Of significance was the high proportion of respondents seeing government accounts such as myGov being misused by perpetrators to abuse women, with almost a third of respondents seeing this ‘all the time’ (27%) and a further fifth seeing it ‘often’ (37.8%).
International
Backes, Bethany, Lisa Fedina and Jennifer Holmes, (2020) ‘The Criminal Justice System Response to Intimate Partner Stalking: a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research’, Journal of Family Violence 35:665-678, doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00139-3.
This international study assesses the range of criminal justice responses to intimate partner stalking (IPS) victimisation and the extent to which these responses are successful in promoting survivor safety, well-being, and justice. The findings identify formal and informal strategies employed by the criminal justice system to address IPS. Successful strategies for mitigating IPS were associated with increased training of law enforcement and prosecution and the granting and enforcement of civil protective orders.
Hauch, D., Elklit, A. (2023) ‘The psychological consequences of stalking: Cross-sectional findings in sample of Danish help-seeking stalking victims’, European Journal of Psychotraumatology 14(2):1-16, PMID: 38018419.
Of 591 Danish individuals who contacted and received help through a Stalking Centre almost 80% of victims reported symptom levels indicative of a disagnosable disorder of PTSD, depression, or anxiety... it is indicated that stalking is a special type of trauma with many negative and harmful effects.
Katz, E., Nikupeteri, A., & Laitinen, M., ‘When Coercive Control Continues to Harm Children: Post-Separation Fathering, Stalking and Domestic Violence’ (2020) Child Abuse Review
This article highlights how domestic violence perpetrators can use coercive control against their children after their ex-partner has separated from them. It provides insights into how children experience coercive control post-separation by drawing from two data sets: one from the UK and one from Finland. The data comprised narratives of 29 children and young people aged from 4 to 21 years old. Three overarching themes arose from the data: 1) dangerous fathering that made children frightened and unsafe; 2) ‘admirable’ fathering, where fathers/father figures appeared as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victims’; and 3) omnipresent fathering that continually constrained children’s lives. Dangerous fathering made children’s lives frightening, constrained and unpredictable. Admirable fathering was found to be a powerful tool of control when combined with dangerous fathering, because admirable fathering increased father-child emotional bonds and could make children want to see/live with their fathers, whilst dangerous fathering simultaneously made them fearful of him. Admirable fathering was typically aimed at professionals and wider communities, and could occur alongside fathers/father figures stalking, harassing and/or attacking ex-partners and children when they were not in the public eye. Perpetrators aimed to portray themselves as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victim’ fathers, and to make their ex-partners seem like perpetrators or deficient mothers. Perpetrators disguised their use of coercive control tactics as ‘admirable’ behaviour. With respect to omnipresent fathering, children were fearful that their father/father figure could appear at any time to attack, harass, manipulate, upset or kidnap them or their mothers. This behaviour led to some children continuously monitoring their surroundings as a protective strategy. Fathers/father figures were able to maintain some degree of control, domination and emotional power over children even when they were not physically present. The article suggests that robust measures are necessary to prevent coercive control perpetrating fathers/father figures from using father-child relationships to continue exerting coercive control on children and ex-partners.
Lo, M., A Domestic Violence Dystopia: Abuse via the Internet of Things and Remedies Under Current Law. California Law Review, [s. l.], v. 109, n. 1, p. 277–315, 2021.
US based note. Abstract: Tactics of domestic violence are nothing new. However, as with various other aspects of modern life, technology threatens disruption. The increasing prevalence of Internet of Things (IoT) devices has given abusers a powerful new tool to expand and magnify the traditional harms of domestic violence, threatening the progress advocates have made in the past thirty years and creating novel dangers for survivors. An IoT device is a “smart,” stand-alone, internet-connected device that can be monitored or controlled from a remote location. They are cheap and increasingly common—the number of IoT-enabled devices in the world is already in the billions and expected to grow quickly. IoT devices allow abusers to overcome geographic and spatial boundaries that would have otherwise prevented them from monitoring, controlling, harassing, and threatening survivors. Various advocates are finding ways to protect survivors, and the broader public, from these new dangers. In the domestic violence sphere, domestic violence service providers are creating resources for survivors that explain IoT-facilitated abuse and how to better secure their smart devices. In the technology sphere, consumers, businesses, digital experts, and the media are broadcasting the security risks of IoT devices. Unfortunately, significantly fewer outlets describe the legal remedies available for IoT-facilitated abuse. This Note aims to bridge that gap. It demonstrates that IoT facilitated abuse is a form of technology-facilitated domestic violence and explores how society can use current laws to address IoT facilitated abuse. However, it also questions whether the existing remedies are sufficient and offers recommendations for legal and nonlegal changes that will better protect survivors of IoT-facilitated abuse and hold perpetrators accountable.
Mechanic, Mindy B, Terri L Weaver and Patricia A Resick, ‘Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking Behaviors: Exploration of Patterns and Correlates in a Sample of Acutely Battered Women’ (2000) 15(1) Violence and Victims 55.
These USA based researchers recruited 114 battered women from shelters, agencies, and from the community at large to complete a survey and an interview about stalking. Results support the view that violent and harassing stalking behaviours occur with high frequency among physically battered women, both while they are in the relationship and after they leave their abusive partners. Emotional and psychological abuse emerged as strong predictors of within- and post-relationship stalking, and contributed significantly to women's fears of future serious harm or death, even after the effects of physical violence were controlled. The length of time a woman was out of the violent relationship was the strongest predictor of post-separation stalking: stalking increased over time.
Messing, Jill et al., (2020) ‘Intersections of Stalking and Technology-Based Abuse: Emerging Definitions, Conceptualization’, and Measurement, Journal of Family Violence.
This article analyses stalking and technology-based abuse across 3 samples of IPV survivors (pen-and-paper surveys, web-based surveys and qualitative interviews). Over a 6-year period, data was collected from IPV survivors who received services from domestic violence programs (including shelters). This article highlights the high prevalence of intimate partner stalking, including direct stalking, monitoring, online harassment, and cyberstalking, among shelter and service-seeking survivors of IPV. Around 62-72% of women reported being directly stalked, and 60-63% reported experiencing technology-based abuse by an intimate partner. Women reported monitoring, online harassment, and cyberstalking more readily when directly asked, thereby demonstrating the importance of incorporating technology-based abuse into assessment and intervention.
Paradiso, M.N., Rolle, L. and Trombetta, T. (2024) ‘Image-based sexual abuse associated factors: A systematic review’, Journal of Family Violence 39:931-954.
This study aims to review and systematize research focused on factors (i.e., predictors and consequences) associated with Image Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) victimization, perpetration, and propensity to perpetrate. 17 studies were included in this systematic review, most were conducted in the United States (5) or in Canada (3).
Three studies were conducted in Australia, two in the United Kingdom, and two were multi-centric studies performed in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.
One study was carried out in the Netherlands, and one was conducted in Nigeria. The study observes that although IBSA does not only occur within intimate relationships, in some cases it seemed to correlate with other forms of intimate partner violence. The authors observe that IBSA victims suffered from a wide range of negative psychological, relational, and social effects (including anxiety and PTSD and social withdrawal). Often victims did not seek help as where images had been initially consensually shared they felt ashamed and embarrassed.
Stark, Evan, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press, 2007).
This book is a key text on domestic and family violence. Although Stark is based in the United States his work has been highly influential in Australia. In this book Stark explains that domestic and family violence is a pattern of controlling behaviours akin to terrorism and hostage-taking. Drawing on court records, interviews, and FBI statistics, Stark details coercive strategies that men use to deny women their very personhood. He explains that surveillance and stalking include behaviours such as gathering information without the victim’s knowledge and letting the victim know she is being watched, and serve as a means of curtailing the victim’s activities and isolating her (p457-8).
Stark also discusses what he refers to as ‘micro-surveillance’, including activities such as going through diaries and drawers etc; monitoring phone calls, bank accounts and movements; or requiring partners to ‘check-in’ as a form of coercive control used by abusers in relationships (p461-3). Stark notes on p374 surveillance tactics may be extended to the point the victim is essentially confined, amounting to a deprivation of liberty. See this YouTube video of Evan Stark, discussing the central thesis of his book: Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life.
Domestic and family violence behaviours that involve a perpetrator following, harassing or monitoring the victim are forms of stalking or surveillance designed to deprive the victim of privacy, autonomy and a sense of safety. These abusive behaviours may occur while the perpetrator and victim are in an intimate relationship, or they may commence or intensify upon separation.
The perpetrator’s detailed knowledge of the victim’s workplace, family, friends, daily routines, regular hangouts, online activities, inclinations, concerns and fears enables the perpetrator to employ an array of abusive tactics that may be overt and intimidating (for example: letting the victim know they are being watched or overheard) or covert and thus difficult for the victim to anticipate, detect or trace (for example: amassing information about the victim’s movements that can later be used to monitor, threaten or humiliate the victim).
Studies indicate that these abusive behaviours may be accompanied by incidents of theft, trespass and property damage, and are compelling risk factors for all other forms of domestic and family violence. Where the perpetrator and victim have children in common, handover occasions may increase the risk of further violence and provide an opportunity to conceal or check tracking and surveillance devices, as well as a wide range of Internet-connected devices such as smart toys). Children may also be co-opted to facilitate abuse, eg. through sharing a parent’s passwords.
Research demonstrates a dangerous prevalence of online stalking and online surveillance, which use digital information and associated technologies as tools for the perpetration of domestic and family violence, also known as technology-facilitated abuse, digital abuse or digital coercive control. These technologies involve the associated use of social media and online accounts, information communication technologies, computers, tablets, recording equipment, smart phones and other digital devices such as global positioning systems (GPS) or satellite navigators, drones, game consoles, emerging smart, internet-connected systems such as doorbells or cameras. Increasingly, digital systems are recognised as easy, accessible and instantaneous methods by which a perpetrator can control, monitor, humiliate and shame the victim, and make it more difficult for the victim to leave the abusive relationship or seek help.
Technology-facilitated methods are highlighted in the following examples:
•
Monitoring and stalking (for example, via Skype, via drones, via location sharing apps such as Find My) the whereabouts and movements of the victim or children in real time.
•
Remotely accessing, taking control over and altering or deleting the software and files on a victim’s digital device.
•
Sending abusive messages – even via online banking - and altering the sender identity information so as render the origin untraceable.
•
Visiting offensive websites, and then making contact with the host or bloggers under the guise of the victim, and expressing an interest in violent or abusive pornography or being raped or sexually assaulted.
•
Sending text messages to the victim communicating threats and verbal abuse.
•
Using social media sites such as Facebook to publicly accuse and blame the victim.
•
Accessing a tracking device in the victim’s car via any digital device and repeatedly texting the victim to communicate the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s whereabouts.
•
Taking intimate images of the victim (with or without consent) on any digital device and distributing them or threatening to do so; this includes the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly referred to as ‘image-based abuse’ and sometimes as 'revenge porn'.
•
Installing an application or spyware on the victim’s digital device that:
◦
allows access to the victim’s text messages, emails, social media accounts, camera, call logs, photographs, contacts and browsing history;
◦
enables the recording and receiving of the victim’s phone calls;
◦
converts the victim’s digital device to a remote listening device; or
◦
enables unauthorised access to property and accounts via remote access.
•
Impersonating an individual or creating a fake profile of an individual (such as the victim, potential romantic partner, or real or fictious child that reaches out to the victim’s children).
•
Doxxing (publishing private and identifying information such as name and address).
•
Financially harm victims e.g., by making online orders without the victim’s consent.
Due to the seemingly elusive or ambiguous nature of some of these abusive behaviours, a victim may feel a heightened sense of fear and powerlessness, and yet the victim may be the only means by which the police can gather evidence of the behaviours. A significant barrier for victims of technology-facilitated abuse and stalking may be a perception by police or judicial officers that the behaviours are less serious than physical violence and, as a consequence, there may be a tendency to trivialise the victim’s experience and minimise the harm suffered, leading to inadequate legal responses. It is important in protection order application proceedings where a victim is seeking protection from these forms of abusive behaviours that the conditions of the protection order specifically address the behaviours. Victims cannot be expected to simply ‘go offline’ as essential life dimensions are now mediated through technology e.g., paying taxes, searching and applying for jobs.
In some circumstances, victims may use digital technologies as a safety aid in preventing or escaping domestic and family violence. However this may also leave the victim vulnerable to accusations of stalking or surveillance-like behaviour. For example, a victim may record repeated incidents of violence with the intention of proving a pattern of violence. Such behaviour may be lawful. It is important therefore to distinguish between behaviours that are protective on the part of the victim, and those that constitute violence by a perpetrator. There are resources available that provide information about how to ensure safety when engaging with technology. In some cases recording private conversations, and maintaining surveillance, may be legally justifiable. Increasingly private individuals seek to have their recordings of other’s private conversations and activities admitted as evidence in legal proceedings in domestic and family violence related cases. Often the recording and surveillance material is collected covertly. Legislative responses to these issues vary across Australia.
Following, harassing or monitoring may be one aspect of a complex pattern of behaviours engaged in by perpetrators in order to control another person, sometimes referred to as coercive control.
Domestic and family violence behaviours that involve a perpetrator following, harassing or monitoring the victim are forms of stalking or surveillance designed to deprive the victim of privacy, autonomy and a sense of safety. These abusive behaviours may occur while the perpetrator and victim are in an intimate relationship, or they may commence or intensify upon separation.
The perpetrator’s detailed knowledge of the victim’s workplace, family, friends, daily routines, regular hangouts, online activities, inclinations, concerns and fears enables the perpetrator to employ an array of abusive tactics that may be overt and intimidating (for example: letting the victim know they are being watched or overheard) or covert and thus difficult for the victim to anticipate, detect or trace (for example: amassing information about the victim’s movements that can later be used to monitor, threaten or humiliate the victim).
Studies indicate that these abusive behaviours may be accompanied by incidents of theft, trespass and property damage, and are compelling risk factors for all other forms of domestic and family violence. Where the perpetrator and victim have children in common, handover occasions may increase the risk of further violence and provide an opportunity to conceal or check tracking and surveillance devices, as well as a wide range of Internet-connected devices such as smart toys). Children may also be co-opted to facilitate abuse, eg. through sharing a parent’s passwords.
Research demonstrates a dangerous prevalence of online stalking and online surveillance, which use digital information and associated technologies as tools for the perpetration of domestic and family violence, also known as technology-facilitated abuse, digital abuse or digital coercive control. These technologies involve the associated use of social media and online accounts, information communication technologies, computers, tablets, recording equipment, smart phones and other digital devices such as global positioning systems (GPS) or satellite navigators, drones, game consoles, emerging smart, internet-connected systems such as doorbells or cameras. Increasingly, digital systems are recognised as easy, accessible and instantaneous methods by which a perpetrator can control, monitor, humiliate and shame the victim, and make it more difficult for the victim to leave the abusive relationship or seek help.
Technology-facilitated methods are highlighted in the following examples:
•
Monitoring and stalking (for example, via Skype, via drones, via location sharing apps such as Find My) the whereabouts and movements of the victim or children in real time.
•
Remotely accessing, taking control over and altering or deleting the software and files on a victim’s digital device.
•
Sending abusive messages – even via online banking - and altering the sender identity information so as render the origin untraceable.
•
Visiting offensive websites, and then making contact with the host or bloggers under the guise of the victim, and expressing an interest in violent or abusive pornography or being raped or sexually assaulted.
•
Sending text messages to the victim communicating threats and verbal abuse.
•
Using social media sites such as Facebook to publicly accuse and blame the victim.
•
Accessing a tracking device in the victim’s car via any digital device and repeatedly texting the victim to communicate the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s whereabouts.
•
Taking intimate images of the victim (with or without consent) on any digital device and distributing them or threatening to do so; this includes the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly referred to as ‘image-based abuse’ and sometimes as 'revenge porn'.
•
Installing an application or spyware on the victim’s digital device that:
◦
allows access to the victim’s text messages, emails, social media accounts, camera, call logs, photographs, contacts and browsing history;
◦
enables the recording and receiving of the victim’s phone calls;
◦
converts the victim’s digital device to a remote listening device; or
◦
enables unauthorised access to property and accounts via remote access.
•
Impersonating an individual or creating a fake profile of an individual (such as the victim, potential romantic partner, or real or fictious child that reaches out to the victim’s children).
•
Doxxing (publishing private and identifying information such as name and address).
•
Financially harm victims e.g., by making online orders without the victim’s consent.
Due to the seemingly elusive or ambiguous nature of some of these abusive behaviours, a victim may feel a heightened sense of fear and powerlessness, and yet the victim may be the only means by which the police can gather evidence of the behaviours. A significant barrier for victims of technology-facilitated abuse and stalking may be a perception by police or judicial officers that the behaviours are less serious than physical violence and, as a consequence, there may be a tendency to trivialise the victim’s experience and minimise the harm suffered, leading to inadequate legal responses. It is important in protection order application proceedings where a victim is seeking protection from these forms of abusive behaviours that the conditions of the protection order specifically address the behaviours. Victims cannot be expected to simply ‘go offline’ as essential life dimensions are now mediated through technology e.g., paying taxes, searching and applying for jobs.
In some circumstances, victims may use digital technologies as a safety aid in preventing or escaping domestic and family violence. However this may also leave the victim vulnerable to accusations of stalking or surveillance-like behaviour. For example, a victim may record repeated incidents of violence with the intention of proving a pattern of violence. Such behaviour may be lawful. It is important therefore to distinguish between behaviours that are protective on the part of the victim, and those that constitute violence by a perpetrator. There are resources available that provide information about how to ensure safety when engaging with technology. In some cases recording private conversations, and maintaining surveillance, may be legally justifiable. Increasingly private individuals seek to have their recordings of other’s private conversations and activities admitted as evidence in legal proceedings in domestic and family violence related cases. Often the recording and surveillance material is collected covertly. Legislative responses to these issues vary across Australia.
Following, harassing or monitoring may be one aspect of a complex pattern of behaviours engaged in by perpetrators in order to control another person, sometimes referred to as coercive control.