Domestic violence protection orders and civil procedure : assessing risk and enhancing safety

Thomas, Kathryn

Domestic violence protection orders and civil procedure : assessing risk and enhancing safety

Thomas, Kathryn

Permalink

Publication Type:: Thesis
Issue Date:: 2025

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download thesisAdobe PDF (1.92 MB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Thomas, Kathryn
dc.date.accessioned	2025-12-15T22:05:07Z
dc.date.available	2025-12-15T22:05:07Z
dc.date.issued	2025
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/190941
dc.description	University of Technology Sydney. Faculty of Law.	en_US.UTF-8
dc.description.abstract	A multitude of national and state-based legal and non-legal responses have attempted to address domestic and family violence (DFV) in Australia, with mixed success. Recognition of the pervasiveness of DFV and severity of harm it causes has prompted government and sector responses increasingly focused on identifying, assessing and managing ‘risk’. Risk-based approaches can be observed across the DFV service delivery system, including in court processes for protection orders (POs): a widely used civil legal intervention in Australia aimed at protecting victims/survivors from DFV. Due to their ubiquity, considerable research has focused on the effectiveness of POs and, separately, risk-based approaches to DFV. Yet few studies examine how DFV risk considerations inform the making of POs and the implications for victims/survivors’ safety. This gap in the research is striking considering the heavy reliance on POs and their oft-assumed role (albeit with mixed efficacy) in mitigating risk and preventing further DFV. This study aims to fill this gap by examining how DFV risk considerations inform the making of POs, and what this means for the safety of victims/survivors’ safety. As POs in Australia are administered under diverse state and territory legislative regimes, this study focuses on New South Wales (NSW), where POs are known as Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs). The ADVO system is technically complex and involves multiple, diverse professionals. This study’s findings are based on qualitative interviews conducted with key court-involved professionals, made up of 12 magistrates, eight lawyers and eight court support workers. Three implications for considering ‘risk’ in the NSW ADVO system emerge from these interview findings. Firstly, adopting a structured approach to ‘risk’ throughout the ADVO process, underpinned by a clear conceptual framework of ‘DFV risk’ would assist in more consistent risk considerations being undertaken for the purposes of ADVOs. Secondly, embedding opportunities for victims/survivors’ input at all stages in the ADVO process is necessary to ensure any adopted risk-based approaches result in enhanced safety. Thirdly, constraints in the underlying design and operation of the ADVO system and the currently ambiguous conceptual framework of ‘risk’ indicates inherent challenges and limitations exist in adopting any structured approaches to ‘risk’ in the ADVO context. Effectively addressing these challenges and limitations requires resolving more profound questions about how we define the role and ‘effectiveness’ of ADVOs, what benefits we expect risk-based approaches to provide in the ADVO context, and to what extent expansive understandings of ‘safety’ underpin these concerns.	en_US.UTF-8
dc.format	Thesis (PhD)
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US.UTF-8
dc.relation	https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/190941/1/thesis.pdf
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights	The author owns the copyright in this thesis including all reproduction and reuse rights for the work. The work may not be altered without the permission of the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from this thesis.
dc.rights	© 2025 Kathryn Thomas
dc.rights	au.edu.uts.lib/cph
dc.title	Domestic violence protection orders and civil procedure : assessing risk and enhancing safety	en_US.UTF-8
dc.type	Thesis
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*

Abstract:

A multitude of national and state-based legal and non-legal responses have attempted to address domestic and family violence (DFV) in Australia, with mixed success. Recognition of the pervasiveness of DFV and severity of harm it causes has prompted government and sector responses increasingly focused on identifying, assessing and managing ‘risk’. Risk-based approaches can be observed across the DFV service delivery system, including in court processes for protection orders (POs): a widely used civil legal intervention in Australia aimed at protecting victims/survivors from DFV. Due to their ubiquity, considerable research has focused on the effectiveness of POs and, separately, risk-based approaches to DFV. Yet few studies examine how DFV risk considerations inform the making of POs and the implications for victims/survivors’ safety. This gap in the research is striking considering the heavy reliance on POs and their oft-assumed role (albeit with mixed efficacy) in mitigating risk and preventing further DFV. This study aims to fill this gap by examining how DFV risk considerations inform the making of POs, and what this means for the safety of victims/survivors’ safety. As POs in Australia are administered under diverse state and territory legislative regimes, this study focuses on New South Wales (NSW), where POs are known as Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs). The ADVO system is technically complex and involves multiple, diverse professionals. This study’s findings are based on qualitative interviews conducted with key court-involved professionals, made up of 12 magistrates, eight lawyers and eight court support workers. Three implications for considering ‘risk’ in the NSW ADVO system emerge from these interview findings. Firstly, adopting a structured approach to ‘risk’ throughout the ADVO process, underpinned by a clear conceptual framework of ‘DFV risk’ would assist in more consistent risk considerations being undertaken for the purposes of ADVOs. Secondly, embedding opportunities for victims/survivors’ input at all stages in the ADVO process is necessary to ensure any adopted risk-based approaches result in enhanced safety. Thirdly, constraints in the underlying design and operation of the ADVO system and the currently ambiguous conceptual framework of ‘risk’ indicates inherent challenges and limitations exist in adopting any structured approaches to ‘risk’ in the ADVO context. Effectively addressing these challenges and limitations requires resolving more profound questions about how we define the role and ‘effectiveness’ of ADVOs, what benefits we expect risk-based approaches to provide in the ADVO context, and to what extent expansive understandings of ‘safety’ underpin these concerns.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/190941