Case Summary
A client was served with a Family Violence Safety Notice following an incident involving his brother. The incident occurred while the client was experiencing an acute episode of alcohol-related psychosis, during which he failed to recognise his brother and assaulted him.
Following the incident, police served the client with a Family Violence Safety Notice, and a hearing concerning a family violence intervention order was listed for the following Tuesday.
The notice prevented the client from having contact with his brother, with whom he had previously enjoyed a close relationship.
The Challenge
The key issues were whether an interim family violence intervention order should be made and whether a final order was ultimately warranted.
The no-contact conditions were particularly distressing for the client given the strength of his relationship with his brother before the incident.
There were also potential implications for the client's existing and prospective employment, including concerns about a possible investigation by the regulatory body responsible for overseeing his prospective employment.
The defence needed to demonstrate that the incident occurred in unusual circumstances and that the available history did not indicate an ongoing pattern of family violence or an existing grievance between the brothers.
Our Strategy
Brett Barratt focused on thorough preparation and early communication with the lawyer representing police.
The defence opposed the interim intervention order application and prepared submissions explaining why the circumstances justified discontinuing the conditions imposed under the Family Violence Safety Notice.
Key considerations included the absence of previously reported incidents between the brothers, the absence of previous intervention orders and the fact that the incident was out of character. The defence highlighted that the incident arose in unusual circumstances involving excessive alcohol consumption rather than an ongoing dispute or grievance between the brothers.
Preparation involved detailed conferences with the client, gathering supporting documentation and providing the police lawyer with a comprehensive outline of the defence position before the hearing.
This proactive approach ensured that the relevant circumstances and supporting material could be considered at the earliest opportunity.
The Result
The Magistrate agreed that the application for a family violence intervention order should be struck out.
The proceedings concluded at the first hearing, meaning the client was not required to return to court in relation to the application.
The outcome allowed the client to resume his relationship with his brother without the ongoing restrictions associated with the proposed intervention order. It also avoided the uncertainty and potential employment implications that could have accompanied continued proceedings.
Why Experience Matters in Family Violence Matters
Family violence intervention order proceedings can have significant consequences for personal relationships, employment and future opportunities. A careful assessment of the circumstances, the available evidence and the applicable legislation is essential when responding to an application.
Stary Norton Halphen & Galbally has experience representing clients in family violence intervention order proceedings throughout Victoria. Our approach involves detailed preparation, careful consideration of the evidence and early engagement with the other parties where appropriate.
In this matter, preparation and communication before the first hearing helped ensure that the client's circumstances were properly presented and that the matter could be resolved without further proceedings.
If you are facing a family violence intervention order application, obtaining legal representation early can help you understand your options and prepare your response.
Disclaimer: The case results featured are real matters handled by our firm. However, every case is different and outcomes vary depending on a range of factors, including the specific facts, circumstances and evidence involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes and should not be relied upon to predict or determine the result of your matter.