Due to the complex nature of domestic and family violence matters, it may be necessary for judicial officers in their conduct of related proceedings to consider and respond to a range of factors to ensure that parties are afforded fair and equal access to justice and that those at risk of harm are protected. In order to properly respond to domestic and family violence judicial officers will often need information presented to them, not just about individual incidents of violence, but also about the history and pattern of violence in the relationship. Judicial officers should actively consider the power of the court to regulate its own proceedings.
There is a developing understanding among judicial officers in Australia that domestic and family violence rarely involves a single incident or a series of discrete incidents of physical violence. Rather, it manifests as a complex pattern of violent and abusive behaviours through which a perpetrator exercises control over the victim, often for extended periods, sometimes referred to as coercive control. The facts of a particular matter and the circumstances of the affected parties are likely to have a direct and substantial bearing on the manner in which a judicial officer discharges their obligations in the conduct of proceedings and the protection of parties.
For some victims their engagement with law enforcement agencies and the courts may exacerbate or prolong the trauma they have experienced as a result of the domestic and family violence. For example, absence of legal representation, lack of interpreter services, giving oral evidence, being cross examined, being present in the court room or court precinct with the perpetrator, or having to repeatedly return to court for mentions, adjournments and hearings may contribute to a victim’s revictimisation or secondary abuse through the court system. Judicial officers should ensure, where practically possible and resources permit, that these factors and their adverse consequences are addressed.
It is critical that parties feel that they have been properly informed of their rights and what to expect in the court process and that they have been taken seriously and given due opportunity to be heard.
For victims, it is critical that their safety and protection are assured and that they are in control of their participation in the proceedings and of choices affecting their lives beyond the court room. In facilitating these outcomes, a judicial officer may need to take into account a victim’s individual vulnerabilities, and their specific experience of domestic and family violence or its impacts.
The 2024 amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 Cth introduce further protections for the use of DFV victims' confidential communications in family law proceedings (e.g., health records and records from specialist family violence and sexual violence services), which aim to balance the probative value of information with the harm that disclosing the information might do to parties and children involved. (see last section of this context statement for further information).
For perpetrators (or offenders), Australian research indicates the possible adverse effects of a lack of understanding of court processes, the terms of orders, and the consequences for breaches of orders. These effects may include a perception by the perpetrator (or offender) that the process is unfair or unjust, or that the order has no real force. This suggests that efforts by judicial officers to address these perceptions may produce more positive outcomes. Australian research indicates the value of judicial officers looking at and directly speaking to perpetrators/offenders. US research emphasises the importance of the interaction between judicial officers and perpetrators/offenders, and that a process of shared respect may be a key factor in compliance. The Canadian Domestic Violence Bench Book also highlights a range of behaviours and perceptions that are common among many domestic and family violence perpetrators, and points out that when judicial officers keep in mind these behaviour patterns when listening to evidence, perpetrators have fewer opportunities to mislead.
Changes to Adversarial Proceedings and Protected Confidences (Family Law)
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 allows the Court to better manage any type of family law proceedings in a less adversarial way, with the aim of reducing intimidation and stress of court processes for families. A less adversarial approach may involve the use of technology to facilitate remote attendance where there are family violence allegations, or permitting the use of evidence on the effect and occurrence of family violence which would not usually be admissible
In addition, the disclosure of certain communications (relating to domestic and family violence) for purposes of family law proceedings is acknowledged to be potentially distressing and harmful to parties and children involved. As a result, the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 has introduced protections for documents that record or relate to certain confidential communications referred to as ‘protected ’. The Amendment Act empowers parties in the family law system, and others, to take steps to prevent the disclosure and use in evidence of communications occurring where a person seeks treatment or support from:
•
health services (where ’health’ refers to both psychological and physical health)
•
specialist family violence services
•
specialist sexual violence services.
A communication will be a ‘protected confidence’ if it has “…arisen in the course, or in connection with, a professional relationship where there is an express or implied obligation of .” The Court can make a direction to protect this information and prevent it from being inspected, copied or adduced in court, where access would likely cause harm to a protected confider, or a child involved in the proceedings, and the harm outweighs the desirability/probative value of accessing the evidence. In parenting proceedings, the best interests of the child will be the Court’s paramount interest (s 60CA FLA).
Examples of the types of harm that may be considered by the court include:
•
physical harm
•
psychological harm or oppression
•
mental distress
•
a detrimental effect on the other party’s capacity to care for a child
•
financial harm.
A protected confidences direction can be made by the Court on its own initiative, or an application for a direction can also be made by “a confider, confidant, litigation guardian or person in possession or control of relevant documents (such as a health service or health professional)”. In proceedings involving children, an application can also be made by an ICL or person who has care of, or has or proposes to have, parental responsibility for a child.
Due to the complex nature of domestic and family violence matters, it may be necessary for judicial officers in their conduct of related proceedings to consider and respond to a range of factors to ensure that parties are afforded fair and equal access to justice and that those at risk of harm are protected. In order to properly respond to domestic and family violence judicial officers will often need information presented to them, not just about individual incidents of violence, but also about the history and pattern of violence in the relationship. Judicial officers should actively consider the power of the court to regulate its own proceedings.
There is a developing understanding among judicial officers in Australia that domestic and family violence rarely involves a single incident or a series of discrete incidents of physical violence. Rather, it manifests as a complex pattern of violent and abusive behaviours through which a perpetrator exercises control over the victim, often for extended periods, sometimes referred to as coercive control. The facts of a particular matter and the circumstances of the affected parties are likely to have a direct and substantial bearing on the manner in which a judicial officer discharges their obligations in the conduct of proceedings and the protection of parties.
For some victims their engagement with law enforcement agencies and the courts may exacerbate or prolong the trauma they have experienced as a result of the domestic and family violence. For example, absence of legal representation, lack of interpreter services, giving oral evidence, being cross examined, being present in the court room or court precinct with the perpetrator, or having to repeatedly return to court for mentions, adjournments and hearings may contribute to a victim’s revictimisation or secondary abuse through the court system. Judicial officers should ensure, where practically possible and resources permit, that these factors and their adverse consequences are addressed.
It is critical that parties feel that they have been properly informed of their rights and what to expect in the court process and that they have been taken seriously and given due opportunity to be heard.
For victims, it is critical that their safety and protection are assured and that they are in control of their participation in the proceedings and of choices affecting their lives beyond the court room. In facilitating these outcomes, a judicial officer may need to take into account a victim’s individual vulnerabilities, and their specific experience of domestic and family violence or its impacts.
The 2024 amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 Cth introduce further protections for the use of DFV victims' confidential communications in family law proceedings (e.g., health records and records from specialist family violence and sexual violence services), which aim to balance the probative value of information with the harm that disclosing the information might do to parties and children involved. (see last section of this context statement for further information).
For perpetrators (or offenders), Australian research indicates the possible adverse effects of a lack of understanding of court processes, the terms of orders, and the consequences for breaches of orders. These effects may include a perception by the perpetrator (or offender) that the process is unfair or unjust, or that the order has no real force. This suggests that efforts by judicial officers to address these perceptions may produce more positive outcomes. Australian research indicates the value of judicial officers looking at and directly speaking to perpetrators/offenders. US research emphasises the importance of the interaction between judicial officers and perpetrators/offenders, and that a process of shared respect may be a key factor in compliance. The Canadian Domestic Violence Bench Book also highlights a range of behaviours and perceptions that are common among many domestic and family violence perpetrators, and points out that when judicial officers keep in mind these behaviour patterns when listening to evidence, perpetrators have fewer opportunities to mislead.
Changes to Adversarial Proceedings and Protected Confidences (Family Law)
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 allows the Court to better manage any type of family law proceedings in a less adversarial way, with the aim of reducing intimidation and stress of court processes for families. A less adversarial approach may involve the use of technology to facilitate remote attendance where there are family violence allegations, or permitting the use of evidence on the effect and occurrence of family violence which would not usually be admissible
In addition, the disclosure of certain communications (relating to domestic and family violence) for purposes of family law proceedings is acknowledged to be potentially distressing and harmful to parties and children involved. As a result, the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 has introduced protections for documents that record or relate to certain confidential communications referred to as ‘protected ’. The Amendment Act empowers parties in the family law system, and others, to take steps to prevent the disclosure and use in evidence of communications occurring where a person seeks treatment or support from:
•
health services (where ’health’ refers to both psychological and physical health)
•
specialist family violence services
•
specialist sexual violence services.
A communication will be a ‘protected confidence’ if it has “…arisen in the course, or in connection with, a professional relationship where there is an express or implied obligation of .” The Court can make a direction to protect this information and prevent it from being inspected, copied or adduced in court, where access would likely cause harm to a protected confider, or a child involved in the proceedings, and the harm outweighs the desirability/probative value of accessing the evidence. In parenting proceedings, the best interests of the child will be the Court’s paramount interest (s 60CA FLA).
Examples of the types of harm that may be considered by the court include:
•
physical harm
•
psychological harm or oppression
•
mental distress
•
a detrimental effect on the other party’s capacity to care for a child
•
financial harm.
A protected confidences direction can be made by the Court on its own initiative, or an application for a direction can also be made by “a confider, confidant, litigation guardian or person in possession or control of relevant documents (such as a health service or health professional)”. In proceedings involving children, an application can also be made by an ICL or person who has care of, or has or proposes to have, parental responsibility for a child.