Intervention Orders Versus Civil Liberties.

On The 15th August 2012, I walked Into Courtroom 4 In a Magistrate's Court in Melbourne. A Defendant was seeking A Variation to an Intervention Order Before Magistrate Len Brears.

The Defendant Told Magistrate Brears, Your honour I am seeking a Variation To an intervention Order that Prohibits me From Going To My Family Members Place Of employment. I Have To Travel with My work and My Family Members Place of Work is at Tullamarine Airport.

Well Magistrate Len Brears Said, The Laws are there to be used with Common Sense and I doubt that any Police Officer would Charge you For Breeching An intervention Order If You had a Legitimate Excuse To Be At The Airport.

From My Personal Experiences, What Magistrate Len Brears was Saying, Doesn't Necessarily Happen In The Real World, Intervention Orders can affect where People Shop, Swim Or Go To a Meeting even if you Have a Legitimate Reason To Be There. They can Seriously affect a Person's Civil Liberties On a day To day Basis, Outside The Theoretical world Of The Courtroom,  Here are a Number Of Examples Of What Really happens.

     A Defendant was in a Hurry in a large Melbourne Shopping Centre and Needed to Get a few Groceries Before going Home. His ex-Brother-in-law worked at The Store at Left which was Technically Covered by an Intervention Order, The Defendant asked The management Whether he could Get just a few Items From Their Store. Management told The Defendant that was OK,



The Defendant was in and Out of The store in 10 Minutes Around 12 noon On a Saturday Morning.There was no Criminal Intent by The Defendant, he just wanted to buy Some goods From The Store, But This was a Criminal offence by Virtue of The Intervention Order That was In Place In Victoria.

There was another Supermarket In The Same Shopping Complex, But that would also Be a Breech of an Intervention Order because Both stores are Run by The Same Company.

In Fact in This Case, Management told The Defendant's Ex Brother-in-law about The Defendant's Use of the supermarket,




The Police were Notified and The Defendant was Charged by Police For Breeching an Intervention Order.The Police Charge Sheet said, The So called Affected Family Member Felt Harassed & Intimidated By the defendant using The Supermarket,

The Charge was Completely Ridiculous, Because The defendant's Ex Brother-in-law worked at the Supermarket to Fill the Supermarket's Shelves Late at Night and Didn't actually work there during The day, so The So Called AFM was Not working in The Store at 12 Noon On A Saturday Morning at The time of the "Alleged Breech".of The Intervention Order.

 In another Intervention Order Case, The Defendant was a Member of a Club that had Scheduled a Special Meeting at a Meeting Room at The Local Council offices (Pictured Left). The Defendant was on The Committee of the Club and had Duties to perform During The meeting In cluding Taking a Video Of a Speech.





 The problem was the Committee had Invited Another Group That Included the Defendant's Ex Brother-in-law who had an Intervention Order against Him.The Defendant Rang The Local Police Station To Enquire, Who had a Legal right to Be at The Meeting as both the Defendant and his Ex Brother-in-law had Intervention Orders Against Each Other.

Well, The Police Officer  said we Would arrest You and Charge you if you Went to the Meeting, Because You are going to The meeting Knowing That Your Ex Brother-in-law Could be Going There too, which would be a Breech Of the Intervention Order.

The Defendant was Stunned to say The Least, The defendant had a Legitimate Reason to Be at the Meeting as he was a Committee Member, But The police Made it Very Clear that they Would arrest Him if he went to the meeting.

On One Visit To a Court In Melbourne, The Defendant asked Magistrate Greg McNamara To Clarify who had a Legal right To attend the meeting In this Type of Situation, To which The Magistrate Simply replied, If it was Me, I Wouldn't Be going. The Senior Magistrate has said From the Bench at this Same Court, That Intervention Order's are There to Provide Defendant's with Clear Boundaries as to what they can and Can't Do. The Defendant Left The Court None the Wiser in regards to his Legal Rights in Attending The Meeting.

You don't have to be a Young Thug Or Violent to be In This sort of Situation, An elderly Woman On a walker appeared Before Magistrate Marc Sargent Seeking a Variation to Her daughter's Intervention Order who worked for a Store that had Shop's in 2 Very Large Shopping Centres and a smaller Strip shopping store in Melbourne.

Your Honour, I need to seek Clarification as to Which Shopping Centre's I am allowed to attend, I have to be Able to shop Somewhere the Woman Pleaded,

Yes, it Needs to Be Clarified Replied The magistrate and adjourned The matter to a Return Date.

As I mentioned Earlier The variation Sought By A defendant before Magistrate Len Brears In Regards to Tullamarine Airport, resulted in The defendant Being able to attend Tullamarine Airport on Legitimate Business, But he will be Breeching The Intervention Order if He Fly's With a Particular Airline.


People should be able to attend Public Places without having to seek Clarification at a Magistrate;s Court on Intervention Orders that have Nothing to do with Family Violence at all.

The Majority of Intervention Orders In Victoria have an Exclusion Zone Of 200 Metres. The Defendant in This Case had been a Member of This Leisurecentre For over 10 Years, attending at Least 3 or 4 Times a week, But the Defendant's Ex mother-in-law rang Police Claiming that The defendant was Breeching The order Because The Far end of This Swimming Pool (Pictured Left) was within 200 Metres of her Back Fence.



So The defendant was Not Within 200 Metres at This End Of the Pool, But it was claimed He was at Some point at the Other end of the 50 Metre Lap Lanes.

The Defendant didn't want to Breech The Intervention Order so a Variation was sought to Vary The Order from 200 Metres, back to 150 Metres so that the Exclusion Zone Didn't Cover any part of The Leisurecentre.

The Application was heard by Victorian Magistrate Denise O'Reilly who handed this Decision Down.

The Leisurecentre is in fact within 200 metres, At least in part. Had the evidence been that you see them at the leisurecentre and leave immediately, then I might have made a different decision, but the fact is you see them and you don't leave. They end up leaving. Now they're the ones who have taken out the orders against you. They are not subject to orders. There is nothing that prevents them coming up to you and speaking to you, but you must not approach them. If they speak to you, you ought not be speaking to them, because they won't go to jail for speaking to you, but you will Go to jail if it can be construed that you have approached them, or that you have had a conversation which has preceded to develop into any behavior that could be called harassing or intimidating to them.

Maybe Magistrate O'Reilly Should read page 24 of the Book, responding to Intervention Orders, under the heading 'What does no contact mean" it says this. No Contact means no contact with the other person. It also means that the other person with the intervention order should not contact you. If the other person contacts you this could put them in Breech of the Order. So which interpretation is Right???. This illustrates the confusion that surrounds the interpretation of Intervention Orders in Victoria even by Magistrates.

This Interpretation of Victorian Intervention Order's By Magistrate Denise O'Reilly allowed the Defendant's Brother-in-law to take The Dispute one Step Further.

    The Defendant had Parked his Car To go to this Shopping Centre Pictured at Left, It was at Night and as The Defendant walked Towards the Shop's, His Ex Brother-in-law saw him and came Over and Blocked The Defendant Walking towards the Shop's by Standing 10 Metres in Front of Him.

The Defendant Kept on walking and as The Defendant got to the Right hand Side of the Supermarket His Ex Brother-in-law Followed him across to the Left Hand side of the Supermarket's Entrance.

At This Point The Defendant Turned around and Told his ex Brother-in-law to go away and Leave Him alone, in No uncertain Terms. Then The ex Brother-in-law Tried to Physically Grab The Defendant By The Arm and Said, Come on , I'm Taking you Over to the Police Station, Because you have Just Breeched My Intervention Order.

The Defendant decided it was time to also Seek an Intervention Order against his Ex-Brother-in-law Because Magistrate Denise O'Reilly's Decision allowed His Ex Brother-in-law to Approach Him and then claim it was the Defendant that had Breeched The Intervention Order, which could Lead to The Defendant Being Charged By Police.

The application was Heard By Magistrate Hugh Walter. The ex brother-in-law's Explanation of the Situation was Misleading and Quite different. Your honour The Ex Brother-in-law explained, I grabbed The Defendant by the Arm to stop Him Breeching The Intervention Order, Because he would Have been Breeching The order by entering the Supermarket, Which is My Place Of work.

Magistrate Hugh Walter asked the Defendant's Ex-brother-in-law how Long He Had worked at The supermarket. I have worked there for about a Month, Then I'll Go And Work at another Store For a Month and will Probably Return to work at this Supermarket again in a Few Months. The Defendants Barrister said to Magistrate Hugh Walter, how does my client supposed to know when his Ex Brother-in-Law is working at Which SuperMarket.??? Magistrate Hugh Walter agreed & Granted The Intervention Order against The ex- Brother-in-law Until Further order Because he had Tried to grab The Defendant By The Arm. At least the Defendant was now legally Equal with his Brother-in-Law in Terms of Breeching the Intervention Order.

What defendant's Don't Realize is that These type's of Intervention Order's can go on and On Like This for Years, and can affect your lifestyle Considerably, even What you consider to be your Normal Lifestyle can Become a Criminal offence simply By a Magistrate granting somebody an Intervention Order against you despite the Fact that Intervention Orders are Civil Dispute's, and you don't have to actually Harm anybody to have an Intervention Order issued against you. Once the Intervention Order is in Place, Anything can Happen, depending on a Magistrate Or police officer's interpretation Of the Law. As you have seen in These Examples.

Because your ex-in-law or relation has an Intervention Order against You In Victoria, they will then become Protected witnesses and any Time you seek To Vary Or Revoke the Intervention Order it will cost you a lot Of Money, because you Cannot Cross Examine the Other Person and you will be Forced to have Legal Representation at The Court. As Magistrate Max Cashmore said to One defendant, if You don't have Legal Representation then you Virtually have no Chance of winning the Case, even if you haven't seen your Relation or Ex-In-Law in many years, Magistrate's Such as Denise O'Reilly or Greg McNamara may not Consider your Evidence to Be " Changed Circumstances" and Deny Your Application because they might say that you are Simply Complying With the Intervention Order, which Doesn't constitute " Changed Circumstances"

An application Before Magistrate Marc Sargent to vary an Intervention order was denied, Despite The fact the Defendant had no Contact with His Ex-Brother-in-law in Nearly 8 Years,because The Magistrate Concluded that having the intervention Order Remain in Place, Created " No Impediment" To The Defendants Day to Day life. The applicant Didn't Have to Prove to the Court why the intervention Order Should Continue, The Defendant had to Prove to the Court why the order should End.

On the 15th August 2012, I Left Magistrate Len Brears Court and Headed Downstairs to Courtroom 8. In the witness Box was a Young Woman who was applying for an Interim Intervention Order against Her Husband, She was Quite Upset.

I am very concerned about the Safety of My Children the Woman Said, My Husband has The children and he has Been assessed by a CAT Team as Being Suicidal and I Believe he may also harm The Children too. The Magistrate adjourned The matter to a Final Intervention Order Hearing on a Future Date,

As I Have said Before, The intervention order Process is not really a Protection System, Lets hope The Husband Does Not Become Suicidal Before The Next Hearing Date by The Court.