Wife claims cop husband made gun threat, said he would walk in front of truck with their child

A war of words between a wife and her police officer husband during a domestic violence legal battle has led a District Court judge to lash a magistrate’s ruling in favour of the husband.

A judge has slammed a magistrate who refused to give a wife a full domestic violence protection order and removed a temporary protection order she already had.

The woman claimed her husband – a police officer – threatened to step in front of a truck while holding their young child and told her to remember he carries a gun for work.

The husband has denied his wife’s allegations and her claims against him remained untested in court.

In April 2021, the husband was served with a police protection notice by another police officer. The notice said he could not contact his wife, and included their child. It also required him to appear in a Queensland magistrates court the following month.

In September 2021, the woman applied for a full protection order in a Queensland magistrates court, having already been granted a temporary protection order.

Not only did the female magistrate dismiss her application, she also ordered the woman’s temporary protection order should end that day.

“He (the husband) goes into great detail about every incident that’s been alleged against him. He says he’s never threatened to take the child away from her,” the magistrate said.

“He also gave evidence that it was the aggrieved’s (his wife’s) mother who was responsible for the ‘hit by a truck’ discussion, alleging that she had told him he should be hit by a truck in the course of an alleged tirade of abuse of him and his character.

“The aggrieved (the wife) has given a very short affidavit of only about 24 paragraphs and only a few pages. The respondent (her husband) has given a much more fulsome account of their relationship, that extends over 208 paragraphs and almost 30 pages.

“When reading the comments of the aggrieved made in text messages, I find that no court would be satisfied that she is in fear for her safety because of the robust way with which she continues her often abusive conversations with (her husband).”

The wife appealed the magistrate’s decision in the District Court. Judge Bernard Porter found the magistrate was wrong.

“There was material from the aggrieved (the wife) and the aggrieved’s mother alleging three acts of domestic violence … (the magistrate) should have declined to consider the application for summary dismissal until the evidence before her was tested at trial,” he said.

“(The magistrate) erred in placing weight on the fact that the respondent (the husband) was a serving police officer when deciding to dismiss the (wife’s) application. While achieving an expeditious result is important, it should not result in improperly depriving the other party of their opportunity for a fair determination of the application.

“(The magistrate) brought the matter on for summary determination on one day’s notice … It was unfair to deal with the matter in that short time frame.”

Judge Porter granted the wife’s appeal, overruled the magistrate’s decision, and sent the case to a different magistrates court with a different magistrate.

If you or someone you know needs support, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or www.lifeline.org.au, or DVConnect on 1800 811 811 or www.dvconnect.org.