VIC 'Publishing on the Internet' - Breach of Intervention Order?

[ruckusman]

I think you've got your clue in the word midnight - the entire day of 24 hours has to pass for it to reach 12:00 midnight on the date of expiration, to attempt to interpret it otherwise leaves you with it expiring at midnight 12:00 on the day before, which is 12:00 AM - morning on the day of expiration - that's not an argument I'd attempt to advance to a Magistrate

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I understand your interpretation but I don't think it's necessarily objectively correct in a way we can all agree on (except of course for the sake of safety to assume you are not free of the order on the day it expires, only the day after).

Even the Americans recognise how bloody ambiguous it is and the National Institute of Standards and Technology strongly recommend that midnight not be used for legal documents...

Times of Day FAQs

www.nist.gov

 

[ruckusman]

I do see where you're coming from, one tweak to the detail would suffice to clarify it: Expires on 11:59:59 PM -> midnight on any particular date, then the clock tick to 12:00:00 AM of the following day is no longer ambiguous as it has expired at that precise moment of the transition of dates.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Agreed. I think your interpretation is correct in terms of what is intended though, because in my case, my order was granted for a period of xx months and is due to expire on the same date it was granted xx months later. So if it actually expired the moment it ticked over TO that day, the length of the order would be just short of xx months, whereas if it expires at the end of that day, it does take effect for the full xx months.

 

[sammy01]

So I think I'm being asked to explain 'common sense'? HHMM if you need it explained then you're not likely to have the capacity to understand.

So IF one was to punch someone at 11.59.59PM OR 12.00.1 AM. An assault has taken place. No judge is gonna be interested in a defence along the lines of 'Your honour, sure I committed assault, but I didn't breach the terms of the avo..." Why? Well the answer is common sense.

If having a sense of humour involves murdering people because of an absence of clarity of the duration of exactly 1 second and using that same 1 second delay in determining when to commit DV - then yup, I'd rather have common sense than a sense of humour and a long prison sentence coming my way.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Sammy you've majorly missed the point. One, I wasn't actually asking you to "explain common sense", I was asking you to use your common sense (the thing you seem to think you have an abundance of and we lack) to interpret whether 'midnight' was the start or end of a given day...

What are you talking about assaulting and murdering someone for!? Nobody mentioned that at any point. If you recall previous threads, I have repeated stated my ex took out a vexatious IVO on me and I've been waiting patiently for it to expire. I have no intention of, nor have I ever, committed family violence of any kind. You've jumped off the deep end. The only thing I did was make a tongue in cheek comment about waiting an extra day before doing anything bold.

What I had in mind for 'bold' was something more along the lines of finally being legally allowed to ask for my damn property back that she has withheld from me ever since I was unceremoniously evicted from my own house on the basis of a baseless claim with zero evidence backing it up... Meanwhile your assumption about me being bold is along the lines of assault and murder? If I had that in mind, I'm not sure what the point of waiting for an IVO to expire before doing so would be! Pull your head in and respond to what's actually been said, not what your imagination runs off to.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Oh and I just realised you were responding to the 'they should be shot' bit... cmon, seriously? I guess you're one of the jobsworths that would have someone arrested for very clearly joking about a bomb on a plane or something. I'm not condoning or encouraging anyone doing that btw, I'm just saying you know damn well it was a joke, I even spelled it out afterwards. Why take it literally when it was clearly not intended to be? You know the likelihood I was seriously threatening their lives was virtually zero. And you chastise us for not having common sense?

 

[sammy01]

just hang on a second....
you've just had the piss taken out of you.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

If you say so... is that all you've got to say? The only reason I totally misunderstood previously was that my 'they should be shot' was so clearly a joke/figure of speech that I actually had no idea you were referring to it as 'assault and murder'... Either way, you've missed the point pretty badly. Wanna have another go at responding to the ACTUAL point instead this time? Like, take me at my word that I wasn't actually suggesting assault and murder on anyone? Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread? Something to say about when an IVO expires? You were still the one bringing up punching someone and saying it wouldn't matter whether it was before or after the IVO expired. Yeah, obviously, but that had literally nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Atticus]

The misinterpretation(s) of this line specifically are leading to all sorts of problems:
publish on the internet, by email or other electronic communication any material about the protected person(s)".

Some have misread this to mean:
1\ email is inherently published - demonstrably untrue. An email between private recipients is no more published that a letter sent by the tradition means of normal post is published.

My thoughts, & first off... I am not here to dispute the misuse of DVO's... It's rampant IMO, however ...

The actual Definition of publish contained with in the relevant legislation >>>
"publish" means disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means, including by—


(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; or


(b) broadcast by radio or television; or


(c) public exhibition; or


(d) broadcast or electronic communication—

Source... Family Violence Protection Act

So... If you, the respondent were to email the protected person, you are in breach anyway so no need to establish whether or not 'publication' occurred.... If you, the respondent email ANYBODY else, be it a 'private' email or not, with ANY material relating to the protected person, that meets the definition of publish, because any person, is a member of the public (section of the public) The exception may be to your legal rep