Gympie man appeals DV order, claims Legal Aid ‘banned’ him

A Gympie man, who was rejected 15 times by the public legal service, has asked for an investigation while also trying to revoke conditions of a domestic violence order.

A Gympie man who accused the publicly funded lawyer service Legal Aid of “manipulating” the system against him has lost a second attempt to revoke a domestic violence order.

The man, who cannot legally be identified, was placed under the five-year-long order on November 2019 in Gympie Magistrates Court.

It contained a half-dozen conditions, including that he not come within 100m of where the aggrieved and her children live, work, or are educated.

The only exception was for contact under a court order, or which his former partner’s written permission.

The man, identified in the published District Court ruling as JKL, had initially tried to have the order revoked or changed to exclude reference to the children.

This appeal was rejected by a Gympie magistrate in October 2021, so JKL appealed that ruling in the district court.

This week, he lost the second appeal, too.

A Gympie man has had an appeal against a five-year-long domestic violence order barring him from coming within 100m of a woman and her children except by consent thrown out of the District Court.

Judge Ian Dearden refused the appeal saying in his published ruling JKL “failed to make out any of his grounds of appeal”.

Mr Dearden said the accusations against Legal Aid, for which JKL said he had unsuccessfully applied for 15 times and subsequently implored the courts to investigate why, were not grounds for appeal.

“It is not the role of a trial magistrate to investigate, or otherwise become involved in, the granting or refusal of legal aid,” Mr Dearden said.

Judge Ian Dearden rejected all five appeal grounds of the man’s appeal, and said claims he had been “Banned” from accessing Legal Aid for two years was not grounds for an appeal. Photo Nev Madsen / The Chronicle

He also said an existing Federal Circuit Court order already outlined specific times the JKL could spend two hours with the children six times a year, and the DV order allowed this.

He rejected suggestions the man risked being charged for breaking the order if he ran into them in the street or they waved at him “for which he was criminalised before”, and the ability for the mother to use the written contact provisions of the order to “harass” him.

It had already been highlighted to JKL, Mr Dearden said, that in these circumstances he had an “obligation” to turn around and walk away.

If this happened he would not be penalised.