Overwhelming domestic violence court workload blamed for rubbers stamped order

An overwhelming workload in the Gold Coast domestic violence court has been blamed for the “rubber stamping” of a permanent protection order.

AN overwhelming workload in the Gold Coast domestic violence court has been blamed for the “rubber stamping” of a permanent protection order.

But Judge Katherine McGinness said overload was no reason for correct procedures not to be followed.

The overload claim comes after a man who threatened to kill his partner appealed a permanent domestic violence order to the Southport District Court, following a series of errors in the Southport Magistrates Court.

Judge Katherine McGinness said the huge workload in the domestic violence court was no reason to “rubber stamp” permanent protection orders.

The workload of the Domestic Violence Court was overwhelming, she said but added: “The constant challenge is to balance the need to administer justice expeditiously with the need to include reasons that support the Court’s decision.

“The present case demonstrates why the making of or varying temporary and protection orders are not to be rubber stamped.”

The NSW man and his partner had visited the Gold Coast in September last year when they began to fight.

Neighbours called police when they heard him yelling “I will kill you”.

Police started procedures for a domestic violence order to be taken out and the pair returned to NSW.

The matter was heard in court in December and the man appeared via phone.

The court was told at the time he and his partner had reconciled and wished to live together. He said he would be opposing the order and the matter was adjourned to February.

The magistrate told the man he could appear via phone on the next occasion. It is not clear if the man was told the date the matter was adjourned to.

MORE NEWS

Manvir Singh Attal fined after running over elderly woman in car park

Lawyer questions senior police over charges dropped midway through day one of trial

Gold Coast family lawyers say those looking to get a divorce should not delay

A Notice of Adjournment which detailed the court date was generated but never sent to the man. In February, the police prosecutor did not tell the magistrate an order had been made that the man could appear via phone.

“No effort was made to call either party,” the appeal documents read.

The documents also said the magistrate had marked the file in December indicating the parties could appear via telephone in February.

“Despite the endorsement, the court had not telephoned the appellant,” the documents said. “The Magistrate, without hearing submissions, made a Protection Order for five years.”

The man did not find out about that permanent order until later that month when he phoned police prosecutors.

The appeal documents show the decision to issue it took less than a minute.

“What is undeniably clear is the Magistrate has failed to give any reasons to support the exercise of his decision to impose a five-year protection order based on the material before him,” Judge McGinness said.

She said she found police should have notified the court the parties were to appear via phone.

Judge McGinness also found the magistrate made an error making the order by not stating his reasons and not considering all the necessary parts of the legislation when making the order.

The permanent domestic violence order was removed and the matter returned to the Southport Magistrates Court to be reconsidered.