Why are AVOs/IVOs so damn useless or contain many loopholes?

[u/tictactoe197]

This is now the 5th time I’ve been harassed by this individuals friends, and I went to the station to report it, but the police literally couldn’t do a damn thing. The AVO/IVO I have only covers this individual directly, it says “this person cannot harass this person,” but nothing about this individuals friends. It doesn’t say “this person’s friends cannot harass this person,” which is such a massive fucking flaw in the system.

So basically, this individual can’t come near me or harass me, but this individuals mates can step in and do it all they want, and the police just shrug their shoulders because it’s not written on paper. When I reported it as a potential breach, they told me I have to wait until the next court date and then ask for an “appeal” or “amendment” or some shit like that to update the order so it actually covers this individuals friends too.

It honestly makes no sense. The system knows damn well that if this individual can’t breach the AVO/IVO, this persons friends will step up and do it for him. But somehow that’s not automatically included in the order unless you specifically ask for it in court. That’s ridiculous, how is someone supposed to think of every loophole when they’re just trying to be protected?

It’s complete bullshit. Now I really understand why people get so sick of the police and their slow, half-assed response. They talk about protection, but in reality, unless the exact words are printed on the order, they’ll sit there and say they can’t do shit while you keep getting harassed. It’s broken, and it feels like the system is more about ticking boxes than actually keeping people safe.

[u/EasternEgg3656]

AVOs/IVOs are relatively easy to obtain. The flip side of that is that because they are so easy to obtain, they have to be quite vague/non-punitive.

To get a more substantial order, one has to go to court and that requires evidence, defences etc.

It's about balancing safety, convenience, freedom etc, and so there will always be drawbacks

[u/below_and_above → u/EasternEgg3656]

This is the correct take.

Anyone can at any time go to a magistrate and ask for an FVO on the weight of evidence submitted at the time, but that evidence does not need to be interrogated at the time, it’s not checked for truth or to confirm it’s realistic. It’s not a “both sides” discussion, it’s just one person’s cherry picked accusations in order to support they are in fear of the other person.

This can be weaponised easily, and as such are handed out to seperate two people while they cool off, in the same way people will be taken to the drunk tank to cool off without being at fault of a crime.

Nobody should consider an FVO to be anything but someone has given enough evidence that a magistrate has decided two people need to be separated for a while.

If during that time, the person listed advises the other keeps trying to contact them or causes others to contact them for the purposes against the order, that’s an offence that can lead to jail. However even in that case, you will be arrested, given bail as an evidence hearing is held, then after that a sentencing hearing is held, where finally you can know the outcome of whether or not the breach was substantial.

In some cases, you can breach by technicality. During custody of children someone may say “hello” and you may respond with “hi, how are you.” Automatically, without thinking, you’ve breached by enquiring as to their wellbeing.

In some cases, people breach by firebombing the car and home of the protected person. Due to this massive variance, there is time for the courts to take evidence, witness statements, consider the evidence in a court and then at a later time decide an appropriate punishment.

But an FVO is just an opinion, supported by one side’s story to a person who decided there was enough evidence presented that people should be separated for awhile to make them chill.

[u/bunduz → u/below_and_above]

Not even evidence really, just a statement that is not investigated

[u/tictactoe197 → u/EasternEgg3656]

Yes I know I got one against another person in about 2 days, but I should’ve asked to also add in the paperwork to prevent his friends from harassing me but it’s too late for that now and I have to wait until the next court hearing which is weeks away

[u/TheDBagg]

A restraining order only restrains the conduct of the person named. That's it. It's the court limiting the freedoms of an individual because there's enough reason to do so. It criminalises behaviours that are otherwise legal for that person only. It cannot apply to people whom the court did not consider in making the order.

[u/Ogolble]

Can you get one against the mates as well?

[u/tictactoe197 → u/Ogolble]

Yes, it’s not just a domestic thing only, you can get it against mates and people that are just straight up harassing you constantly.

[u/UpsidedownEngineer]

I agree, domestic violence is a serious issue in Australia and closing obvious loopholes like this is a relatively simple and low effort method that would have a real impact in combating domestic violence. It's about time that something is done.

[u/tictactoe197 → u/UpsidedownEngineer]

It’s not domestic or family related, its gotta do with some gronk that I don’t like and started a problem with me and all of that persons mates

[u/UpsidedownEngineer → u/tictactoe197]

Thank you for clarifying, sorry I misunderstood the post. I still think the loophole should be closed, can't really see a downside with closing it.

[u/tictactoe197 → u/UpsidedownEngineer]

It’s so simple to fix just add onto the paperwork to prevent their friends from harassing me but I have to ask for that and it’s not even a default thing on the paperwork itself

[u/SlappySlapsticker → u/tictactoe197]

Contact your MP and point this out. In some jurisdictions (I'm in WA) it's included by default - Violence Restraining Orders, and Misconduct Restraining Orders, list the conditions a person cannot breach, then say something like "or induce another individual to breach these conditions"

[u/Wotmate01]

Because that is extremely unlikely to happen, so why would it automatically be included? Do you honestly expect the AVO to be against "named person, plus anyone who has ever or will ever associate with named person"? That's an incredibly wide net to cast, and well and truly open to abuse.

"I've got an AVO against this gronk so he won't come near me, but imma gonna get him by telling the cops his brother has been harassing me".

[u/tictactoe197 → u/Wotmate01]

It’s not about automatically banning every single person connected to the respondent. That would obviously be too broad and open to abuse. The real issue is that in many cases, the respondent uses their close friends or associates as a weapon to get around the AVO/IVO. If the order only covers the respondent directly, it leaves a huge loophole that makes the protection almost pointless.

Courts already have the power to add conditions like “through another person” (e.g., the respondent cannot harass or stalk the protected person directly or indirectly). That indirect part should reasonably cover situations where the respondent encourages or instructs friends to do the harassing.

So the fix isn’t “ban all friends.” The fix is to make it clearer and stronger in the wording of the order that harassment carried out by the respondent through others still counts as a breach. That way, police can act without the victim having to fight for amendments after being harassed multiple times.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/tictactoe197]

Prove that the respondent carried out harassment through others.

That's the point. You can't. You ring the cops saying "Mate of gronk is harassing me because gronk told him to", cops go see gronk, gronk says "dunno what you're talking about", cops go see mate who says "dunno what you're talking about".

I've had death threats from friends and family of someone I had a DV order on, and there was nothing I could do because they called from a hidden number.

[u/SlappySlapsticker → u/tictactoe197]

You've just given the answer to your problem. The courts (not the police) can add those conditions. So the police are correct in telling you that the courts need to amend the AVO before they can act.

[u/SlappySlapsticker]

The police can't enforce something that's not breaking the law unfortunately. And the court decided to issue an AVO/IVO that only covered this person, not their friends. So the police are correct in telling you that the court needs to amend the order for them to be able to act on it.

Otherwise I could just walk into a police station and demand they arrest someone for annoying me and the same could happen to me and everyone would be in jail.

[u/competitive_brick1]

Because the police don't care they just push it through to the courts to decide.
In my experience its a simple way for the police to just pass the buck and let someone else deal with it, not to mention the amount of these that were maliciously created.

[u/SlappySlapsticker → u/competitive_brick1]

The courts did decide, they decided to only include one person on the AVO. Police can't just arrest people without a legal reason to do so, and the courts decide on what that legal reason is. Which is fantastic, otherwise we'd be in some third world dictatorship with police arresting whoever they felt like.

[u/competitive_brick1 → u/SlappySlapsticker]

I’m going through something similar right now and the police officer literally said “it is not my job to investigate, I just send it to the courts to decide” so yeah my faith in the police doing anything helpful is pretty low

[u/SlappySlapsticker → u/competitive_brick1]

That sounds rough bro. And also pretty odd for a copper to say, cause their job is literally investigating. They investigate, put together evidence, then the court makes a decision based on the probability of that evidence being the truth of what happened.

[u/quixote87 → u/competitive_brick1]

100%. Australian Police are absolutely useless when it comes to this sort of shit. Short of murder or missing person, there are not many problems that can't be made worse by involving police and/or the courts.

[u/trinketzy]

You can go to the court and ask for the order to be varied to add the names of the people harassing you. Take supporting evidence.

[u/okraspberryok]

How would you expect it to to work? Anyone the named person knows cannot approach you? How do you prove their intent was because the named person made them approach you?