Just wanted to clarify this point, as I was reading through the older comments again. I wasn't talking about the mention (which we have already gone past now). I was talking about the directions hearing.
VIC Intervention Order - Help with Further and Better Particulars?
- Thread starter GlassHalfFull
- Start date
Just wanted to clarify this point, as I was reading through the older comments again. I wasn't talking about the mention (which we have already gone past now). I was talking about the directions hearing.
Just on the bit about what you need to do to prepare for the directions hearing, the onus is currently on the aggrieved to provide the further and better particulars (and you don't have to do anything at this stage). If they submit those particular to the court, they won't usually be in the form of an affidavit - ours weren't, we just filed some supporting evidence like text messages to support the allegations, along with a recording from of the events that we complained about, and the court forwarded all of that on to the other party.
Even if the other party does provide further and better particulars, you don't need to respond to them before the directions hearing, or at all.
Only a trial requires evidence to be submitted (ie affidavits) by the parties. That's the evidence the court will be testing at trial.
So, in short, the time for response from you about the application is before trial - if you decide to contest, you'll be given directions of when the aggrieved has to file evidence they're relying on to support their application (ie an affidavit), when the respondent has to file a response to that evidence (ie also an affidavit), and when the trial date will take place at court.
For us, our matter was set down for trial about nine weeks after the last mention. Our trial affidavits were filed about four weeks before trial. The respondent's affidavit was filed about a week before trial.
Even if the other party does provide further and better particulars, you don't need to respond to them before the directions hearing, or at all.
Only a trial requires evidence to be submitted (ie affidavits) by the parties. That's the evidence the court will be testing at trial.
So, in short, the time for response from you about the application is before trial - if you decide to contest, you'll be given directions of when the aggrieved has to file evidence they're relying on to support their application (ie an affidavit), when the respondent has to file a response to that evidence (ie also an affidavit), and when the trial date will take place at court.
For us, our matter was set down for trial about nine weeks after the last mention. Our trial affidavits were filed about four weeks before trial. The respondent's affidavit was filed about a week before trial.
Thanks very much. I know not every case plays out the same way, but it's good to get a sense of it, even if it's just an example.
When you say your trial was locked in nine weeks after the last mention, do you mean the directions hearing? Or did you have another mention after the directions hearing?
My only concern about the way you describe it is this... I thought the directions hearing was supposed to give me a chance to decide, based on all available evidence, whether I intend to continue pursuing it to a trial or not. But how am I supposed to do that if she doesn't (and isn't obliged to) submit further and better particulars or an affidavit at that point? I mean, the description of her accusations in the interim order are fairly vague and mostly relate to things a long time prior to the order being sought. Shouldn't I be given the opportunity to know what specifically I'm being accused of, in real detail, BEFORE I commit to a trial? I mean, I do understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that I could turn up on the day of the trial and consent without further admissions, although it would be a waste of everyone's time to do so. But if I only receive her affidavit a week before the trial, it gives me no opportunity other than the day I'm due in court for the trial to consider the merits of her case and decide whether to contest or consent to it. I suppose that's just the playing field we have to work with? Seems a little unfair on the respondent to commit to a trial without knowing what exactly it is that he's defending himself against.
When you say your trial was locked in nine weeks after the last mention, do you mean the directions hearing? Or did you have another mention after the directions hearing?
My only concern about the way you describe it is this... I thought the directions hearing was supposed to give me a chance to decide, based on all available evidence, whether I intend to continue pursuing it to a trial or not. But how am I supposed to do that if she doesn't (and isn't obliged to) submit further and better particulars or an affidavit at that point? I mean, the description of her accusations in the interim order are fairly vague and mostly relate to things a long time prior to the order being sought. Shouldn't I be given the opportunity to know what specifically I'm being accused of, in real detail, BEFORE I commit to a trial? I mean, I do understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that I could turn up on the day of the trial and consent without further admissions, although it would be a waste of everyone's time to do so. But if I only receive her affidavit a week before the trial, it gives me no opportunity other than the day I'm due in court for the trial to consider the merits of her case and decide whether to contest or consent to it. I suppose that's just the playing field we have to work with? Seems a little unfair on the respondent to commit to a trial without knowing what exactly it is that he's defending himself against.
No. A directions hearing is a merely procedural step in the process, but nevertheless an important step.
Make an appointment at the CLC and see how you go. Being employed means you have a good chance of getting assistance.
Okay. I appreciate the clarification. But in that case, it does seem that I have to get past the directions hearing and commit to a trial without even knowing specifically what I'm being accused of then (No further and better particulars or an affidavit). I still believe I am innocent of violence, but how am I supposed to know that when there's no details provided? It does seem bizarre that their case does not have to be laid out until the very last stage in the process (immediately before trial).
Hypothetically, if she submits an affidavit one week before the trial and I say to myself "okay, well maybe it could be argued that I did do that, and I guess the magistrate is going to see that as DV", then my only option (assuming I don't want to contest it) is to turn up on the day of trial and consent without admissions?
Last edited:
You do need details before deciding.
And yes, consent without admissions is your best bet if the ex's F&BP look halfway decent. If no F&BPs arrive you have the option of asking for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence.
Recommend you get onto the CLC asap and get them up to speed on what is happening. Remember to keep it about the kids.
And yes, consent without admissions is your best bet if the ex's F&BP look halfway decent. If no F&BPs arrive you have the option of asking for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence.
Recommend you get onto the CLC asap and get them up to speed on what is happening. Remember to keep it about the kids.
Yes, I agree that to make an educated decision, I do!
I guess I'll have to wait and see if they do get submitted and what they contain before going any further with speculation.Will do. Thanks for your help as always.
As I said in a previous post, there just isn't a lot of information about how this all works online, especially with regards to how magistrates think, how they see intervention orders, the evidence and when it's provided, how you argue your case, etc. Almost everything I read about intervention orders tends to be about how women can request them and how men need to change their behaviour. I suppose it's too subjective and complex a subject to give much in the way of specifics, but researching online does leave you with more questions than answers. As far as procedural information goes, it's all very elemental and simplistic and then assumes/recommends you will get professional legal advice if you need to know more. Which is fair enough, but a guide to how it works in more detail (even if you have a lawyer representing you) would surely be useful, given how expensive private lawyers are and how little time duty lawyers can spare you. From my limited experience since being in the legal system with this and my family law matter, lawyers tend not to explain a lot to you - they just give you a basic scenario and possible outcomes and then proceed to run with it without much consultation or involvement with you, giving you the "trust me, I'm a lawyer" attitude if you ask too many questions.
Before undertaking legal training I have had the same experience.
Sometimes you just have to keep trying until you find a lawyer that suits your style. An initial consultation should also be about you deciding you can relate well with the lawyer.
Sometimes you just have to keep trying until you find a lawyer that suits your style. An initial consultation should also be about you deciding you can relate well with the lawyer.
accepting without admissions, is that how it works, i,ve had a sibling, take one out on me, twisted the story, got an interim order on me, family squabble, court case 9 months after application was made, so if i accept without admissions, will i only have three months more to serve on the order? i was thinking of getting a cross application, hopeing the magistrate will just remove it altogether . would anyone recommend that, thanks.
Similar threads
