Domestic violence victims told by police to leave and let partner calm down
|
Version 0 of 1. Domestic violence victims say police in Queensland have told them to leave the house for the night until their partner “calmed down”, an inquiry into a bill to strengthen domestic violence laws in the state has heard. Other victims said they received the best response from police once officers themselves were threatened by the partner. The inquiry has also heard from the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), which has argued for a ban on sexualised outdoor advertising, saying it is a factor in the increase in sexual violence. The Brisbane Domestic Violence Service (BDVS) has included victims’ experiences with police in its submission to the bill, arguing police response is key to the effectiveness of the legislation. Victims said they had called police numerous times but that they would leave without taking any action, handing “more power to him [the partner]”. Another woman said the responsibility was put back on her to be safe and she was told she “should leave the house for the night to let him calm down”. “The best response I had from the police was when he threatened the police,” another victim said while another submitted: “The onus is on the victim to prove it happened instead of the perpetrator proving it didn’t.” Karyn Walsh, the co-ordinator of Brisbane’s Micah Projects, said in the submission that for many of the women calling police to report domestic violence, it was their first interaction in seeking safety and support as a victim. “Trained, competent, timely and consistent police responses across regions is key to ensuring the safety and engagement of victims of domestic and family violence and, importantly, holding those perpetrating violence accountable for their actions,” she said. “In addition the police response is key to the effectiveness of any legislation that has the aim of making offenders of domestic violence more accountable as well as providing more practical and financial support to victims of domestic and family violence.” BDVS also recommended easier access to financial assistance for victims of domestic violence. ACL used its submission to argue an overly sexualised environment was contributing to a society in which sexual violence was widespread. The Queensland director of ACL, Wendy Francis, expressed sympathy for the victims of domestic violence and said sexual violence inside and outside relationships was on the rise. “ACL has been campaigning against sexualised media and outdoor advertising for many years,” she said, adding that the rise in sexual violence could be attributed to a single factor. Francis said although the issue was not directly related to the bill, sexual violence must be acknowledged in a discussion about domestic violence. The legal affairs and community safety committee is due to report on the bill in November and the Queensland government announced over the weekend a special taskforce on domestic violence to be chaired by the former governor general Quentin Bryce. It is due to report to the premier by the end of February next year. The bill was introduced in May by Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk. It would increase the maximum penalty for contravening court orders if it involved physical violence and allow any relevant history of the relationship – including previous domestic violence – to be included in evidence. It would also ensure victims of domestic violence, including non-criminal domestic violence and victims who do not suffer a physical injury, are eligible for assistance. The Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service broadly welcomed the proposals but said they contained some inadvertent victim blaming, pointing out some amendments focused the attention of the court on the relationship between the defendant and the victim of the current offence. “It is common for defence solicitors to point out that the defendant has offended repeatedly against the same victim in mitigation of penalty, and for magistrates to ask whether the previous offences involved the same victim,” its submission said. “There is an implication that someone who is a repeat victim somehow ‘deserves it’ or is less worthy of empathy. A focus on the current relationship may act in favour of a defendant and ignore a pattern of violence by the defendant against a series of victims.” The legal service also argued the term “physical violence” should be clearly defined because defence lawyers could argue certain actions, such as throwing property at the victim, did not constitute physical violence. |