VIC What to do when police unintentionally reveal someone's address in an intervention order case?

[Tim W]

Look at this way.
It's not an offence to be on the receiving end of an order of this type.
The offence is to breach the order.
You may find that you'll have no trouble with it... All you have to do
is not do any of the things you say you're not going to do anyway.

 

[tntn]

Fair advice. I have a tiny little concern that there may be some place in the future involving employment or visas or working with children checks where someone might ask 'have you ever had an intervention order successfully taken out against you?' and I feel underlying concern that I might have to answer yes to this, but your wording implies this won't be the case. I'm aware too that contesting an order is expensive and possibly a waste of time, given the low standard of the 'probability' concept, rather than a proof beyond reasonable doubt. I'd be happier with a court undertaking, since that doesn't seem to be so susceptible to potential misuse, but it sounds as though in all likelihood I should just agree to the order or hope that, if it goes to court, the order and the charge can be considered together and, ideally, be dismissed on grounds of false claims. If this is how it goes, I'll be very interested to see if the person making false claims ends up with a perjury charge. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Tim W]

I'm assuming here that it's a FVIO...

Fair advice. I have a tiny little concern that there may be some place in the future involving employment or visas or working with children checks where someone might ask 'have you ever had an intervention order successfully taken out against you?'
and I feel underlying concern that I might have to answer yes to this...

Sure. And yes, there are jobs where a person is required to notify/ advise/ disclose.
And it usually matters that they give a truthful answer when asked.
In some jobs, (and, yes, in visa applications), somebody lying (including lying by omission) about their history
can end up as a bigger problem for them than whatever it is that they're trying to hide.

...but your wording implies this won't be the case.

Does it? Interesting perspective. That's in your head, not my words.

I'm aware too that contesting an order is expensive and possibly a waste of time, given the low standard of the 'probability' concept, rather than a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Neither probability nor reasonable doubt are in play.
All the applicant (who need not be the PINOP) has to do is
persuade the court that they have reasonable apprehension that violence could happen.
To get an application refused, a respondent will need to show that the applicant does not and cannot have any reasonable apprehension.
For a respondent, that is very difficult indeed and almost never happens. In practice, presume it impossible.
A respondent's mere emphatic denial is worth little.

The order is you being formally, and, yes, pre-emptively, directed not to do any violence (or any of the other prohibited actions).
Any violence (or other breach of the order) that you do do, can be prosecuted separately from, and additionally to, the offence of breaching the order.

I'd be happier with a court undertaking, since that doesn't seem to be so susceptible to potential misuse, but it sounds as though in all likelihood I should just agree to the order or hope that, if it goes to court, the order and the charge can be considered together and, ideally, be dismissed on grounds of false claims.

We can't tell from here whether or not an undertaking is an option for you in your specific case.
As to abuse - the courts are pretty alert to manufactured breaches when they see them.

If this is how it goes, I'll be very interested to see if the person making false claims ends up with a perjury charge.

So far as the order goes, it won't and doesn't.

 

[tntn]

Thanks for the response. That's all excellent to hear. It sounds like it isn't worth contesting an application for an intervention order, even in cases with falsified claims. It seems that contesting the application would be a waste of time and money, since the standard for an application to be granted is very low. Thanks for the clarification on that point. I'm imagining that a fair tactic is to say that one plans to contest it in the hope that no charges get laid and the whole thing goes away (which is a very realistic prospect in my case). And rightly you picked up my phrase 'your wording implies this won't be the case'. This was sloppy language and needed to be edited out. You're right to assume that it's a FVIO. An undertaking isn't an option for me because a police prosecutor is running the case and I was told by a lawyer that they weren't open to negotiating around an undertaking. And with the possibility of perjury, I'm curious to see what happens if the case goes to trial (which it may well not) and if the applicant repeats demonstrably false claims in front of a judge. I imagine that would have consequences, though I don't know much about how these situations go. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and expertise. It's all really helpful to hear (and hopefully helpful to others too, since this area of law is rather opaque to an outsider).