Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response(ALRC Report 114) 2010.
This report presents a comprehensive review of legal responses to Family Violence in Australia. The commissions received many submissions. Chapter 12 discussed penalties and sentencing for breach of protection orders. The report notes that: ‘The overwhelming majority of stakeholders that addressed this issue were in favour of sanctions that could help to change the behaviour of those who commit violence. Therefore, there was support for ‘perpetrator programs’ such as violence and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs; probation with special conditions, such as attending ‘perpetrators’ courses or counselling’; men’s behaviour programs; psychiatric assessment and treatment; anger management programs; and educational programs on family violence with ‘therapeutic interventions’’ (at [12.172].) Other options raised (as an alternative to imprisonment) included community service orders (provided the work associated with the penalty is ‘meaningful, constructive and rehabilitative’) (at [12.173])
The underlying issue in Chapters 13 and 14 is the way in which the criminal law accounts for the nature and dynamics of family violence. Criminal laws are traditionally perceived as ‘incident-based’, in that they are focused upon discrete acts forming the basis of individual offences. As identified in Chapter 5, family violence is characterised by patterns of controlling, coercive or dominating behaviour and may include both physical and non-physical violence [13.2].
Sentencing Advisory Council (Tas), Sentencing of Adult Family Violence Offenders: Final report No.5 (2015).
This Report provides advice on the sentencing of adult family violence offenders in Tasmania and includes consideration of the range and adequacy of sentencing options and support programs available and the role of specialist family violence lists or courts in dealing with family violence matters. Included in the terms of reference: (2) Sentencing practices in relation to family violence offences across Tasmania; (3) Sentencing standards for family violence offences in comparison to similar offences outside the family violence context; (4) the range and adequacy of sentencing options and support programs available to the courts when sentencing family violence matters
3.2 SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND SENTENCING ORDERS
On a finding or plea of guilt the sentencing officer’s task is informed by the aims and purposes of sentencing. In Tasmania, these aims (replicating recognised common law objectives) are set out in s 3 of the Sentencing Act 1997and include punishment, deterrence, prevention, denunciation and rehabilitation. The decision on sentence is also shaped by a number of other general common law sentencing principles including the central principle of proportionality, which requires that the punishment imposed be commensurate with the blameworthiness of the offender.
When sentencing for a family violence offence an additional consideration is the fact that the legislation suggests that family violence offences need to be regarded seriously and that victim safety may be a more significant factor in the sentencing exercise. The objects clause of the FVA states that the ‘safety, psychological wellbeing and interests of people affected by family violence are the paramount considerations.’
4.1 COMPARATIVE SENTENCING STANDARDS
This section of the Report examines sentencing standards by comparing sentences imposed where an offence is committed in the context of family violence with those imposed for the same offence committed in a non-family violence context. The most common of these (and the only one for which sufficient data exists to enable a meaningful comparison) is the offence of assault contrary to the Police Offences Act, 1935.
5.2 DOMESTIC PROGRAMS
All Australian States and Territories have rehabilitation programs as part of their response to family violence but not all have made legislative provision for referral to such programs. Some of the key differences in the programs are: when a treatment order may be made; whether a counselling order is mandatory, voluntary, or made in connection with sentencing; the type of treatment available; and the effect of a counselling order.
Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic), Sentencing Practices for Breach of Family violence Intervention Orders: Final Report (2009).
This is a report compiled by the Sentencing Advisory Council from Victoria on Intervention Orders in Victoria: their usage, purpose, efficacy and, most importantly, the penalties awarded for their breach. The Council compiled the report by reviewing relevant literature on family data, analysing data on sentencing and conducting new research by consulting those involved in the sentencing process (magistrates, court staff, Victoria Police, community legal centre representatives, family violence service providers, defence lawyers, workers from men’s family violence programs and a family violence victims’ support group). The report found:
•
The sanctions imposed during sentencing for breach of a family violence order were considered by most stakeholders to be far too lenient (viii)
•
Fines are inappropriate sentences for breach of intervention orders (viii) as they can punish the victim as well as the offender (ix)
‘Some sentences which are intended to punish the offender may fail to achieve that purpose. For example, the most common sentencing disposition for breaching an intervention order is a fine. The purpose of a fine is generally said to be to punish the offender and act as a deterrent to future offending by the offender and others. However, the dynamics of family violence mean that fines can punish the victim(s) as much or more than the offender. Payment of the fine by the offender may affect his ability to provide financial support to the victim and her family. The offender may even coerce the victim into paying the fine.’ (at [6.12]).
Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic), Sentencing for Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Second Monitoring Report (2015).
This report is a continuation of previous monitoring work, examining sentencing patterns over yearly periods from 2009 and 2015 for offences involving contravention of a family violence intervention order (FVIO) or a family violence safety notice (FVSN) made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic). In particular, this report examines sentencing for the offences of:
•
contravention of an FVIO;
•
contravention of an FVSN;
•
contravention of an FVIO intending to cause harm or fear for safety;
•
contravention of an FVSN intending to cause harm or fear for safety; and
•
persistent contravention of notices and orders.
In terms of sentencing for FVIO and FVSN contravention, there was an increase in the use of imprisonment and community sentences (including community correction orders (CCOs), following the phased abolition of suspended sentences.
Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic), Swift, Certain and Fair Approaches to Sentencing Family Violence Offenders (2017).
This report examines whether ‘swift, certain and fair’ (‘SCF’) approaches towards sentencing of family violence offenders are desirable in Victoria (p ix). SCF approaches include:
•
targeting offenders serving their sentence in the community;
•
monitoring compliance;
•
responding to contraventions within 72 hours; and
•
responding to contraventions with fixed (usually custodial) sentences, with lengths of between a few hours to a month (p x).
The report concludes that SCF approaches towards sentencing of family violence offenders are not desirable in Victoria because, for example:
•
there is an absence of evidence for the effectiveness of SCF approaches to family violence offences (see [3.15]-[3.24]);
•
the potential risks to victims (see [3.51]-[3.61]);
•
the potential for disproportionate impact on particular groups, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (see [3.117]-[3.129]); and
•
overwhelming stakeholder opposition (p xi).
The report recommends instead that judicial officers make increased use of judicial monitoring conditions in community correction orders (CCO) (Recommendation 5; see [4.56]). The report notes that the Law Institute of Victoria, in its submission, identified judicial monitoring as one of the ‘most promising approaches in reducing family violence offending’ (see [4.27]). Data from the Victorian Magistrates Court reveals that a judicial monitoring condition was attached in 14% of cases (510 of 3,560) where a family violence offender was sentenced to a CCO during the 2015-16 financial year ([4.34]). It is argued that judicial monitoring hearings, in front of the same judicial officer, help foster a sense of accountability in offenders ([4.104])
Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic) ‘Sentencing Breaches of Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Third Monitoring Report (2022).
Reviews Victorian data on breaches of protection orders in 2020.
•
A stable rate of fines of between 21% and 25% imposed on non-aggravated breaches of Family Violence Safety Notices (FVSNs) and Family Violence Intervention Orders (FVIOs) each year since 2011 (xiii).
•
40% of breach offences had received a term of imprisonment in 2020 (xiii).
Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic) ‘Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Prior Offences and Reoffending (2016).
From Executive Summary: This study considers 1,898 people who were sentenced in the Victorian Magistrates’ Court in 2009-10 for contravening a family violence intervention order (FVIO) or family violence safety notice (FVSN). In this study, these two offences are referred to as the ‘index offences’ and the 1,898 people are referred to as the ‘index offenders’. The study examines offending patterns for index offenders over an 11-year period, including prior offences in the five years before the index sentence in 2009-10. It examines reoffending patterns in the five years up to 2014-15 and the factors that were associated with reoffending. The study finds clear differences in the rate and nature of reoffending according to the age and gender of the offender, whether the offender had prior offences, and the type of prior offences that the offender had (pxiii).
There was a correlation between the presence of prior offences and reoffending, in that:
•
around two-thirds of the index offenders with at least one prior sentence did reoffend; and
•
around two-thirds of the index offenders without prior sentences did not reoffend.
There was also a correlation between the number of prior sentence events and the reoffending rate of index offenders. While less than one-third of index offenders with no prior offences reoffended, the reoffending rate increased to over half of index offenders with a single prior sentence event.
As the number of prior sentence events increased, so did the reoffending rate, with almost nine out of ten index offenders with five or more prior sentence events reoffending within five years. A correlation was also found between ‘prior violence’ and reoffending. Almost half of the index offenders (48%) had ‘prior violence’, which was defined as a prior or co-sentenced offence of assault/cause injury and/or threats to kill/injure. Almost two-thirds (64%) of this group reoffended, making these index offenders far more likely to have reoffended than those with no prior offences (31%). The more times that an index offender had been sentenced for assault/cause injury and/or threats to kill/injure, the more likely he or she was to reoffend – with 90% of index offenders with four or more prior or co-sentenced assault/threat offence cases reoffending (pp xvii-xviii).
Teperski, A. and Boiteux, S. (2023) The long and short of it: The impact of Apprehended Domestic Violence Order duration on offending and breaches, Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 261, Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Drawing on a dataset of 13,717 defendants who were placed on an ADVO after a DV incident between January 2016 and April 2018 was extracted from the NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research’s ADVO database. This included 10,820 defendants subject to a final 12-month order, and 2,897 defendants subject to a final 24-month order…. [researchers found] …relative to 12-month ADVOs, 24-month ADVOs were associated with an increase in the probability that an offender breaches the conditions of their ADVO, and a decrease in the probability that an offender commits a proven DV offence. (Extract from abstract).
Weatherburn, Don and Sara Rahman, ‘General offending by domestic violence offenders’Crime and Justice Bulletin (Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, Number 215, 2018).
The purpose of the paper is to assess 1) the extent to which domestic violence (DV) offenders specialise in DV offending; 2) the types and frequency of involvement in non-DV offences by DV offenders; and 3) the similarities and differences between DV assault offenders and non-DV assault offenders. The first two questions were answered by examining non-DV offending by offenders convicted in New South Wales of a DV offence between 2008 and 2017. To address the third question, classification techniques were employed to determine how well DV assault offenders and non-DV assault offenders can be separated on the basis of demographic and criminal justice variables. Results showed that DV offenders committed more than 2.5 times as many non-DV offences as DV offences. The most common non-DV offences committed by the DV offenders were traffic offences (27.99%), theft offences (14.67%) and drug offences (12.31%). There was very little difference between DV and non-DV assault offenders in terms of their demographic and criminal justice profile. The findings, therefore, suggest that most DV offenders do not specialise in DV offending, but a significant proportion of convicted DV offenders do. The fact that most DV offenders commit other offences is significant because measures aimed at deterring and incapacitating them may have consequential benefits in relation to other types of crime (page 8).
This list of considerations is adapted from the Guiding Principles for Sentencing Contraventions of Family Violence Intervention Orders prepared by the Sentencing Advisory Council (Victoria) 2009 and recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114) 2010 (rec. 12.8).
Sentencing a breach of a protection order can be an extremely complex task. Subject to legislation and relevant case law that requires a specific approach (see Table 1 below), in sentencing an offender for breach of a protection order, the following matters may be important to consider:
1.
The purposes of sentencing an offender for breach of a protection order:
(a)
Appropriately balancing the purposes of sentencing is a delicate task in family violence cases, where measures intended to protect the victim can place them at increased risk, and sentences designed to punish the offender may indirectly punish the victim.
(b)
As the function of a protection order is to protect the victim from future harm, an important purpose of sentencing for breach of an order should be to deter non-compliance with the order or future orders to ensure the safety and protection of the victim. The protection of the community, which encompasses protecting the victim, is an important consideration.
(c)
Denunciation and punishment are also important purposes in sentencing for contravention of a protection order. The integrity of an intervention order system relies on there being serious consequences if orders are breached.
Some sentences which are intended to punish the offender may have an unintended consequence. The dynamics of domestic and family violence may mean the imposition of a fine can also punish the victim. Sentences which are structured to ensure that it is the offender who is punished may be more effective in achieving this sentencing purpose (for example orders that require the offender comply with conditions such as completing community work).
(d)
Another sentencing purpose which can be compatible with protecting the victim (particularly in the long term) is rehabilitation. There will be occasions where a sentence with coercive rehabilitation requirements (such as mandatory attendance at a behavioural change course or parenting course) as well as a punitive element (such as community work, a financial condition or a jail term) strikes a better balance between the purposes of sentencing than a sentence such as a fine.
2.
Sentencing factors
(a)
Factors relating to the victim include:
1.
Nature of the breach and its impact on the victim
The nature of the breach of the protection order and its impact on the victim are important factors.
When sentencing for a breach of a protection order regard should be had to the fact that the damage caused to victims who have suffered years of domestic and family violence may make them particularly vulnerable to conduct that in another context would seem relatively innocuous.
Breaches not involving physical violence can have a significant impact on the victim and should not necessarily be treated as less serious than breaches involving physical violence.
Where an offence has taken place in or in the vicinity of the victim’s home, thereby depriving the victim of any feeling of safety or sanctuary, the breach may be regarded as more serious.
Consider whether, if there is no victim impact statement, the judicial officer should enquire as to whether the victim has been given the opportunity to make such a statement. It is however important not to insist on the provision of a victim impact statement and judicial officers should not underestimate the effect of the breach on the victim in the absence of a victim impact statement. Victims may feel it is not safe for them to provide a victim impact statement (see (iv) below.)
2.
Abuse of power
People in family relationships generally have ongoing emotional, legal and/or financial ties, which can also include the joint care of children. They are therefore in a position to commit the kind of breach that could more seriously affect a family member, not merely physically, but so as to cause mental anguish.
3.
Presence of children
When sentencing breaches of protection orders, information about the exposure of any children to family violence may be relevant. Where the original order was imposed to protect children, whether or not alongside another victim or victims, any breach of this order will generally be more serious. This will be so whether or not the children are direct victims or were exposed to the breach behaviour.
4.
Attitude of the victim
In all other jurisdictions generally, the views of the victim should not significantly influence the appropriate sentence for a particular offence. Because victims of family violence may be placed in danger of further violence if they are regarded by the perpetrator as being responsible for the sentence, a court should be mindful as to whether the victim has provided any views on sentence free of pressure or coercion. This may require some consideration of the dynamics of the relationship between the victim and the offender.
5.
Contribution of the victim
It may be relevant that the conditions of the order were breached following contact initiated by the victim. However, in assessing the degree to which this may mitigate the seriousness of the offence it is important to consider the history of the relationship between the parties, the nature of the contact and the victim’s motivation in making contact (and in particular whether the victim was acting under any pressure or coercion). This may require some consideration of the dynamics of the relationship between the victim and the offender.
Some victims have reported that they feel safer if they maintain contact with the offender so they can monitor their level of risk.
6.
Vulnerability of the victim
The particular circumstances of the victim—including any special vulnerability—are relevant to the nature and impact of a breach. Victim vulnerability may aggravate the seriousness of a breach of a protection order such that a higher penalty is justified.
(b)
Factors relating to the offender include:
1.
Nature of the breach
Depending on the dynamics of the relationship even apparently ‘minor’, ‘trivial’, ‘technical’ or ‘low level’ breaches can have a serious impact on the victim.
2.
Culpability
In considering the offender’s culpability in a breach of protection order offence, the court should consider whether the offence was committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently and the offender’s level of understanding of the order.
Generally, the fact that the offender was not present in court when the original order was made and the consequences of breach explained should not mitigate culpability. However, there may be situations in which the offender has not properly understood the conditions of the order (for example, where the offender has poor English skills, an intellectual disability or a mental illness).
3.
Prior convictions and other offending behaviour
A court should take into account information about prior convictions in particular any that relate to the victim in question or other family violence offences, where that information is available.
4.
Previous good character
If there is a proven pattern of domestic and family violence, any evidence of the offender’s ‘good behaviour’ and reputation in society generally should be considered in light of the proven pattern.
5.
Timing of the breach
Where an order is contravened only a short time after the making of the protection order or there has been an earlier breach, this may be an aggravating factor.
(c)
Where a criminal offence is charged in combination with a breach of a protection order:
Where the facts which formed the basis of both charges are the same, consideration must be given to the question of ‘double punishment’.
Table 1: Jurisdictional approaches to sentencing breaches of protection orders.
Australian Capital Territory | section 34B Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) |
section 43 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) | |
New South Wales | section 14(4) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) |
Section 21A(1)-(5C) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). | |
Judicial Commission of NSW, Sentencing Bench Book (2021) [63.515]; [63.518] | |
Browning v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 147 (17 June 2015) | |
Northern Territory | section 121(7) Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) |
Eg. Bush v Lyons [2018] NTSC 20 (28 April 2018) | |
Queensland | section 9(10A) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) |
sections 73, 177-179 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) | |
Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 Bench Book (2021) see sections [20.1], [20.2], [20.3]; [20.8]; [20.9] | |
South Australia | Section 31 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act (2009) SA |
Eg. R v Fox[2017] SASC 5 (3 February 2017) | |
Tasmania | section 35 Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) |
Eg. Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53 (19 October 2018) | |
Victoria | sections 37, 37A, 123,123A Family Violence Protection Act (2008) Vic. |
Judicial College of Victoria, Family Violence Bench Book (2014), [4.1.1]- [4.1.3], [4.2]. | |
R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111 (17 November 1998). | |
DPP v Cormick [2023] VSCA 186 [105]-[108]. | |
Western Australia | Sections 124E and 124F Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) regarding sentencing serial family violence offenders. |
Sections 61-61C Restraining Orders Act (1997) WA | |
Sections 67A, 76A, 84CA, 124D-124G Sentencing Act (1995) WA | |
eg: Howell v Davies [2019] WASC 220 (27 June 2019) |
See also 9.3 Sentencing:
This list of considerations is adapted from the Guiding Principles for Sentencing Contraventions of Family Violence Intervention Orders prepared by the Sentencing Advisory Council (Victoria) 2009 and recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114) 2010 (rec. 12.8).
Sentencing a breach of a protection order can be an extremely complex task. Subject to legislation and relevant case law that requires a specific approach (see Table 1 below), in sentencing an offender for breach of a protection order, the following matters may be important to consider:
1.
The purposes of sentencing an offender for breach of a protection order:
(a)
Appropriately balancing the purposes of sentencing is a delicate task in family violence cases, where measures intended to protect the victim can place them at increased risk, and sentences designed to punish the offender may indirectly punish the victim.
(b)
As the function of a protection order is to protect the victim from future harm, an important purpose of sentencing for breach of an order should be to deter non-compliance with the order or future orders to ensure the safety and protection of the victim. The protection of the community, which encompasses protecting the victim, is an important consideration.
(c)
Denunciation and punishment are also important purposes in sentencing for contravention of a protection order. The integrity of an intervention order system relies on there being serious consequences if orders are breached.
Some sentences which are intended to punish the offender may have an unintended consequence. The dynamics of domestic and family violence may mean the imposition of a fine can also punish the victim. Sentences which are structured to ensure that it is the offender who is punished may be more effective in achieving this sentencing purpose (for example orders that require the offender comply with conditions such as completing community work).
(d)
Another sentencing purpose which can be compatible with protecting the victim (particularly in the long term) is rehabilitation. There will be occasions where a sentence with coercive rehabilitation requirements (such as mandatory attendance at a behavioural change course or parenting course) as well as a punitive element (such as community work, a financial condition or a jail term) strikes a better balance between the purposes of sentencing than a sentence such as a fine.
2.
Sentencing factors
(a)
Factors relating to the victim include:
1.
Nature of the breach and its impact on the victim
The nature of the breach of the protection order and its impact on the victim are important factors.
When sentencing for a breach of a protection order regard should be had to the fact that the damage caused to victims who have suffered years of domestic and family violence may make them particularly vulnerable to conduct that in another context would seem relatively innocuous.
Breaches not involving physical violence can have a significant impact on the victim and should not necessarily be treated as less serious than breaches involving physical violence.
Where an offence has taken place in or in the vicinity of the victim’s home, thereby depriving the victim of any feeling of safety or sanctuary, the breach may be regarded as more serious.
Consider whether, if there is no victim impact statement, the judicial officer should enquire as to whether the victim has been given the opportunity to make such a statement. It is however important not to insist on the provision of a victim impact statement and judicial officers should not underestimate the effect of the breach on the victim in the absence of a victim impact statement. Victims may feel it is not safe for them to provide a victim impact statement (see (iv) below.)
2.
Abuse of power
People in family relationships generally have ongoing emotional, legal and/or financial ties, which can also include the joint care of children. They are therefore in a position to commit the kind of breach that could more seriously affect a family member, not merely physically, but so as to cause mental anguish.
3.
Presence of children
When sentencing breaches of protection orders, information about the exposure of any children to family violence may be relevant. Where the original order was imposed to protect children, whether or not alongside another victim or victims, any breach of this order will generally be more serious. This will be so whether or not the children are direct victims or were exposed to the breach behaviour.
4.
Attitude of the victim
In all other jurisdictions generally, the views of the victim should not significantly influence the appropriate sentence for a particular offence. Because victims of family violence may be placed in danger of further violence if they are regarded by the perpetrator as being responsible for the sentence, a court should be mindful as to whether the victim has provided any views on sentence free of pressure or coercion. This may require some consideration of the dynamics of the relationship between the victim and the offender.
5.
Contribution of the victim
It may be relevant that the conditions of the order were breached following contact initiated by the victim. However, in assessing the degree to which this may mitigate the seriousness of the offence it is important to consider the history of the relationship between the parties, the nature of the contact and the victim’s motivation in making contact (and in particular whether the victim was acting under any pressure or coercion). This may require some consideration of the dynamics of the relationship between the victim and the offender.
Some victims have reported that they feel safer if they maintain contact with the offender so they can monitor their level of risk.
6.
Vulnerability of the victim
The particular circumstances of the victim—including any special vulnerability—are relevant to the nature and impact of a breach. Victim vulnerability may aggravate the seriousness of a breach of a protection order such that a higher penalty is justified.
(b)
Factors relating to the offender include:
1.
Nature of the breach
Depending on the dynamics of the relationship even apparently ‘minor’, ‘trivial’, ‘technical’ or ‘low level’ breaches can have a serious impact on the victim.
2.
Culpability
In considering the offender’s culpability in a breach of protection order offence, the court should consider whether the offence was committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently and the offender’s level of understanding of the order.
Generally, the fact that the offender was not present in court when the original order was made and the consequences of breach explained should not mitigate culpability. However, there may be situations in which the offender has not properly understood the conditions of the order (for example, where the offender has poor English skills, an intellectual disability or a mental illness).
3.
Prior convictions and other offending behaviour
A court should take into account information about prior convictions in particular any that relate to the victim in question or other family violence offences, where that information is available.
4.
Previous good character
If there is a proven pattern of domestic and family violence, any evidence of the offender’s ‘good behaviour’ and reputation in society generally should be considered in light of the proven pattern.
5.
Timing of the breach
Where an order is contravened only a short time after the making of the protection order or there has been an earlier breach, this may be an aggravating factor.
(c)
Where a criminal offence is charged in combination with a breach of a protection order:
Where the facts which formed the basis of both charges are the same, consideration must be given to the question of ‘double punishment’.
Table 1: Jurisdictional approaches to sentencing breaches of protection orders.
Australian Capital Territory | section 34B Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) |
section 43 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) | |
New South Wales | section 14(4) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) |
Section 21A(1)-(5C) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). | |
Judicial Commission of NSW, Sentencing Bench Book (2021) [63.515]; [63.518] | |
Browning v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 147 (17 June 2015) | |
Northern Territory | section 121(7) Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) |
Eg. Bush v Lyons [2018] NTSC 20 (28 April 2018) | |
Queensland | section 9(10A) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) |
sections 73, 177-179 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) | |
Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 Bench Book (2021) see sections [20.1], [20.2], [20.3]; [20.8]; [20.9] | |
South Australia | Section 31 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act (2009) SA |
Eg. R v Fox[2017] SASC 5 (3 February 2017) | |
Tasmania | section 35 Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) |
Eg. Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53 (19 October 2018) | |
Victoria | sections 37, 37A, 123,123A Family Violence Protection Act (2008) Vic. |
Judicial College of Victoria, Family Violence Bench Book (2014), [4.1.1]- [4.1.3], [4.2]. | |
R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111 (17 November 1998). | |
DPP v Cormick [2023] VSCA 186 [105]-[108]. | |
Western Australia | Sections 124E and 124F Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) regarding sentencing serial family violence offenders. |
Sections 61-61C Restraining Orders Act (1997) WA | |
Sections 67A, 76A, 84CA, 124D-124G Sentencing Act (1995) WA | |
eg: Howell v Davies [2019] WASC 220 (27 June 2019) |
See also 9.3 Sentencing: