In 2006, an exotic dancer named Crystal Mangum accused three male lacrosse players of raping her.
The consequences were significant. Aside from the devasting personal consequences of being charged with such a crime, the lacrosse team coach was fired, the team’s 2006 season was cancelled, and personal reputations along the way were destroyed. In April 2007 the Attorney General of North Carolina exonerated the men.
Nearly 20 years later, Ms Mangum recently publicly admitted that she manufactured the entire story.
This sad tale and others like it should provoke some questions, many of which aren’t very popular to bring up in society these days, and are unfortunately often met with visceral political responses rather than considered ones.
For this article, we’re going to ask those questions in the context of Domestic Violence Orders in Queensland.
We might try to find information that might help us answer, for example, questions like these:
- Is the system vulnerable to women bringing applications for Domestic Violence Orders for ulterior purposes during family court proceedings?
- Is the need to protect women at genuine risk being appropriately balanced with the serious consequences for men against whom DVO’s are made?
- What is behind the apparent rise in DVO numbers in Queensland and around Australia? Is this a function of actual increased proven domestic violence or potentially something else?
Let’s see if we can try to scratch beneath the surface of this topic.
The Obvious Need to Protect People from Domestic Violence
Before we get into a closer examination of the topic, let us start by stating what nearly every human being in Western society believes: violence within domestic relationships is unacceptable.
The challenge of writing an article like this is, of course, that some corners of society will view any comment on the possibility that the system is broken or weighted against men as being some kind of tangential suggestion that domestic violence should be tolerated.
Nothing is further from the truth.
But it does not automatically follow that everybody who claims to be a victim actually is, nor does it follow that the system is secured against mischief in the form of false accusations.
The DVO Landscape
Across Australia, DVO applications represent a significant proportion of all applications filed in Magistrates Courts around the country.
And while a DVO itself might be heard in the Magistrates Court, there are self-evident flow on effects through to associated family law proceedings that might then or later be heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Those flow on effects include the possibility of lower credibility as a witness, adverse parenting orders, adverse property distribution orders, and general negative perceptions of the spouse (usually a man) under accusation.
With this in mind, it has to be accepted that there are certain collateral reasons that a woman might seek to bring a DVO application against a man, even though she is not necessarily a true victim of actual violence. This has been the unpopular (albeit frequently rejected) refrain of some men’s support groups for many years, expressing concern about a growing perception that all women are innocent and truthful, and all men are a hair trigger away from being a violent abuser.
From a community standpoint, a survey of over 12,500 Australians in 2011 had over half agree with the statement that “women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case”. A 2001 survey with 38 magistrates responding had 74% agreeing that DVOs are used for tactical purposes.
Finally, we must consider the issue of repercussions when an accusation is made.
Any accusation of domestic violence is viewed seriously, and as often as not the respondent to such an accusation will be treated as guilty from the moment the accusation is made. Their job, friends, lives will be significantly disrupted, likely forever, as a consequence simply of the accusation itself, irrespective of the outcome of the matter. For some they will lose all contact immediately with their children, and the mere existence of the requirement for supervision or non-contact for the duration of the investigation can irreparably destroy those relationships.
A woman who makes a DVO application in times of genuine fear for health or safety will, of course, typically be able to receive protection through legal channels and various support mechanisms that exist throughout the country.
What, however, is the consequence for the women who make false accusations for collateral purposes? Those where the initial accusation is baseless, withdrawn, completely false or ultimately found not to be made out? The answer, of course, is that there is no negative consequence. With much to gain and little to lose, the area is therefore primed to encourage false or inflated accusations of domestic violence by those who are prepared to “game the system” without any real concern for their wellbeing.
The Changing Ideology Behind When Protection is Needed
The Criminal Law system was built on the fundamental principle that an accused is innocent until found guilty.
To determine that guilt or innocence, the traditional method involves a fairly lengthy and detailed process with many established rules for what should or shouldn’t be accepted without corroboration or at least an opportunity to be answered.
That method, of course, is not particularly useful in a situation that might be urgent – for example, if someone requires Court orders for their immediate protection against violent harm.
As a result, the procedures around DVOs have changed significantly from normal procedures.
The shifting ideology around the country now is dominantly headed towards protection of the complainant with significant limitations on the rights of the respondent.
A number of examples highlight this.
First, the relative ease of obtaining a Temporary Protection Order, as discussed more below.
Next, the shifting mindset of what constitutes “domestic violence” seems to be an ever-growing concept. Some might commend this as now capturing meaningful violence that was previously swept under the carpet, but the definition is now so broad that otherwise benign activities, views or historical behaviours can be cast in a light to fit them readily under the “domestic violence” banner.
This expansion has led Bettina Arndt AM to say “The vast majority of these women are not in a dangerous situation. The public doesn’t realize they are forking out mainly to help women who are very rarely under threat. They may have unpleasant partners who are reluctant to pay her credit card bills but there’s just no logic for the billions being spent to “keep them safe””
Finally, in some places around Australia (notably in WA), the legal framework is shifting towards a view that Temporary Protection Orders should be essentially granted on the presumption of guilt, without need for any real evidence in support of the claims.
The Impact of Domestic Violence Orders on Family Law Proceedings
We have suggested above that the domestic violence system is continuing to set itself up as ripe for abuse by malicious actors who have no real concern for their wellbeing, but instead want to seek some ulterior tactical advantage.
What is that tactical advantage?
The obvious and most common suggestion is the potential benefit to be gained in family law proceedings.
After all, if a Judge is faced with two stories: one from an accused abuser (bearing in mind abuse might range from an argument that took place 4 years prior all the way to actual fear of present physical harm) and one from not, then what perception is likely to ensue?
Beyond the issue of credit, what about practical outcomes?
If a father has been evicted from his house and unable to see his children for 3 years because of an interim restraining order, what impact is this likely to have on any parenting orders that are made? What views will estranged children express about their desire to stay with their father?
During that time, what things will have been said about the father by the mother? What deterioration of relationship will have occurred while the father cannot interact with his children, or if he can it is under the watchful eye of a Court ordered supervisor concerned with as-yet-unproven risk of harm?
The financial aspects are material too. With financial resources already stretched, the father has been evicted from the family home. Of course, the father may still need to contribute to mortgage payments and house upkeep, but is now also paying for his own accommodation, services and utilities. Did he lose his job because he couldn’t focus on work due to the upheaval in his personal life? Is he trying to pay his lawyers’ bills each month without any resources to do it?
Of course at this point, no actual final determination has even been made about the allegations. But ultimately that doesn’t matter – the damage has been done irrespective of the end outcome. The upside is that Family Courts are now alive to the issue and continue to play an important part with unfounded allegations being used as a sword rather than a shield.
The Relative Ease of Obtaining a DVO
A DVO that is said to be urgent can now typically be acquired on an interim basis:
- Without notice to the respondent;
- Based solely on the evidence of the complainant;
- With only a typically brief or perfunctory hearing (some lasting less than 3 minutes).
In circumstances of urgent need to prevent actual harm, this seems reasonable.
But what about where it is not?
What if the fear of “harm” that forms the foundation for the application is that the husband and wife had a loud argument about the wife’s overspending habits, reframed by the wife’s unchallenged affidavit attesting to her fear and concern about the tone and volume of her husband’s voice?
Bear in mind the most common consequences of this order: the husband is removed from the home without notice, access to children is over restricted or removed, contact with the other party is forbidden, prevented from certain locations, and the respondent is to “be of good behaviour and not commit domestic violence against the Aggrieved or any other person named on the order”.
But what happens next?
This is a Temporary Protection Order only, and the ultimate result is supposed to be a proper hearing where the evidence is considered, weighed, and a decision is made about the outcome.
So what actually happens?
How do DVO Applications End?
This is where things get a bit murky. The data presented by the Queensland Courts website is something is a mis-matched mess, leaving actual conclusions very difficult to reach – not because of the data that is presented, but because of the data that is not presented.
Let’s first look at the 24-25 YTD data (up to 30 November 2024) because prior year data trickles off as you work through.
So what can we start with? Well, some 11,087 initiating applications relating to domestic violence orders were made in Queensland from 1 July 2024 to 30 November 2024.
We can then see that 9,167 protection orders were made in that time period, but not whether those actually relate to the applications filed in the same period. Similarly, we can see that 6,455 temporary protection orders were made, but it’s not clear if those are the same or different proceedings from the rest, or again which period the applications relate to (eg – applications may have been filed prior to 1 July with orders then made after 1 July).
If we look at the previous year 23-24, we see that 27,857 applications were filed, with 22,893 orders made. Does that mean that 4,964 applications did not ultimately result in protection orders?
And if so, does that suggest that around 18% of applications filed were either withdrawn or ultimately found to have no merit?
It’s hard to say, because the Court has chosen not to align the data, but on those numbers, we at least get the impression that a significant number of applications are filed (with potentially all of the associated consequences we have suggested above) that are not ultimately finalised via a protection order.
But that leads to this question: even where an application is finalised and a protection order made, does that necessarily mean a finding that the order is appropriate and domestic violence occurred?
No. No it does not.
The Concept of “Consent Without Admissions”
If you look at the statistics we’ve set out above, you might want to declare that the system is working as intended. And while the (possible) 4,964 respondents with no orders against them, who may of have had their lives ruined last year are unfortunate, the protections afforded to the balance of the aggrieved applicants make it worth the downside.
But the making of a protection order does not mean that the Court has made a finding against the respondent, or that any of the required elements to secure a protection order have even been made out.
By a significant margin, the most common outcome to a DVO application is that the (usually male) respondent will “consent without admissions”.
Faced with the financial pressure, the perception that the system is weighted against them, the stress of the trial process, and many other relevant factors, respondents to a DVO application will often take what seems to be the most painless path – agree to the orders, but don’t admit the various allegations.
These, of course, get lumped into the general statistic of “protection order made” without the very important clarification that there were no adverse findings of fact, and certainly no finding that any domestic violence took place.
The fact is that matters where there was “consent without admissions” might or might not have ultimately gone on to result in orders against the respondent. We simply don’t know.
But given the process, the numbers are lying about the prevalence of true findings of actual domestic violence in Queensland.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Broad, high level statistics like those on the Courts website are often used by media and various organisations to indicate a growing concern of domestic violence, the efficacy of the system, a need for more funding, or to gather support for various other goals.
But in truth, those statistics can be unfairly weaponised to make claimants seem more honest and reliable, and respondents seem more violent and reprehensible. The idea of a presumption of guilt grows daily, especially when it comes to scandalous media reporting, whose sole consideration is to use the word “allegedly” as often as possible to escape from a defamation suit.
Statistics are only as good as the level of detail they go to. So before we leap in and embrace the entire narrative about domestic violence, here are some good questions to ask:
- How many DVO applications were withdrawn after being made?
- What percentage of temporary orders resulted in final orders?
- Of those, what percentage were “consent without admissions”?
- How many of the matters that actually proceeded to a full hearing resulting in protection orders?
- And in all of these cases, what was the nature of the alleged domestic violence?
Concluding Remarks
Many will disagree with the thoughts we have expressed here, or even the fact that we are considering the other side of the coin in relation to domestic violence applications.
Of course, there is more data out there than the little we have looked at here and some of it will no doubt offer further food for thought on this complicated area.
And there are complex and varied considerations when it comes to balancing protection for victims of domestic violence against the rights of respondents to a presumption of innocence on the balance of probability before their lives may be ruined.
At this point in time, the system, processes and judicial temperament is all heavily leaned towards protection, with minimal consideration for the adverse consequences on the respondent.
Importantly, there remains no adverse consequence for an applicant who secures a temporary restraining order against a respondent but ultimately fails to get a permanent one. In civil cases, a party seeking to injunct another must promise to pay any losses they suffer as a result if they lose – no such undertaking is required here.
Partners to violent spouses need to be absolutely protected.
But partners to manipulative tacticians utilising the system not out of true concern for their wellbeing, but for ulterior advantage, should have protection too.