The State Government is considering allowing police officers to issue on-the-spot, year-long Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld).
Empowering Queensland Police Service (QPS) with independent responsibility for issuing DVOs represents a problematic shift in legal authority that undermines fundamental principles of justice, potentially harms vulnerable populations, and may ultimately fail to achieve its protective aims within the Queensland context.
The separation of powers concern
As the Queensland Law Society has noted in its submissions to government inquiries, “The separation between those who investigate and those who adjudicate is fundamental to Queensland’s judicial system and the rule of law.”1
When police assume both investigative and quasi-judicial functions, they must simultaneously act as evidence gatherers, initial assessors of that evidence, and adjudicators of whether the evidence meets the threshold for legal intervention. This conflation of roles creates an inherent risk that investigative functions may influence or bias adjudicative decisions.
Procedural fairness and due process limitations
Queensland courts issuing DVOs operate within established procedural frameworks that protect the rights of all parties. These procedures include the right to present evidence, challenge opposing evidence, access legal representation, and have matters determined by an impartial decision-maker.2 When police issue DVOs independently, many of these procedural safeguards may be compromised or absent entirely.
The rushed nature of on-scene decision-making creates significant risks of procedural unfairness. As stated in the Queensland case Re Bowen [2013] QSC 327, “Procedural fairness is a fundamental common law right that should only be abrogated with clear legislative intent and compelling justification.”3
QPS officers responding to domestic incidents often operate in high-pressure, emotionally charged environments where careful consideration of competing claims and evidence may be practically impossible.4
Research by the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research found that respondents to police-initiated protection orders frequently reported feeling denied the opportunity to present their version of events, leading to perceptions of systemic unfairness that undermined the legitimacy of interventions.5
This perception problem extends beyond the individuals involved; as research from the Queensland University of Technology demonstrates, perceived procedural unfairness significantly reduces compliance with legal authorities and their directives in domestic violence cases.6 When respondents view DVOs as unfairly issued, they may be less likely to comply with conditions, potentially increasing rather than decreasing risks to victims.
Furthermore, police-issued orders often lack the tailored conditions that Queensland magistrates can craft after more thorough consideration. Judicial officers can develop nuanced orders addressing specific risk factors, property arrangements, child contact provisions, and other complex matters that require careful balancing of competing interests.7 Police issuing orders in the field rarely have the time, resources, or expertise to develop similarly nuanced interventions that adequately address the specific circumstances of Queensland families.
QPS training and resource limitations
While QPS training in domestic violence response has improved significantly following recommendations from the 2015 Not Now, Not Ever report, substantial evidence suggests that many officers still lack the specialised expertise necessary to effectively assess and respond to these complex situations.8
When police lack comprehensive understanding of domestic violence dynamics, their independent assessments regarding the necessity and appropriate terms of protection orders may be dangerously incomplete.
Resource limitations compound these training deficiencies. QPS frequently faces staffing shortages, high workloads, and competing priorities that limit the time available for domestic violence investigations, particularly in regional and remote Queensland.
Queensland magistrates, by contrast, typically receive specialised training in domestic violence dynamics, work within systems designed to prioritise careful deliberation, and can allocate appropriate time to each case.9 While Queensland courts certainly face their own resource constraints, their institutional design prioritises thorough consideration over rapid resolution – a crucial distinction when making determinations that significantly impact fundamental rights and safety.
Systemic biases and discriminatory impacts
Extensive research documents concerns about systemic biases within Queensland policing that disproportionately impact marginalised communities, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.10 These biases manifest in domestic violence responses through documented disparities in arrest decisions, victim credibility assessments, and intervention approaches across racial, socioeconomic, and other demographic dimensions.11 Granting QPS independent authority to issue DVOs risks amplifying these existing disparities by removing an important layer of oversight and review.
Statistical evidence supports these concerns. Queensland Corrective Services data shows Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are significantly overrepresented as respondents in police-initiated protection orders compared to court-initiated orders, raising serious questions about equitable application of these powers.12 The overrepresentation is particularly concerning given Queensland’s troubled history of police relations with Indigenous communities and ongoing concerns about deaths in custody and disproportionate incarceration rates.
Similarly, according to research from the LGBTIQ+ Legal Service in Queensland, LGBTIQ+ relationships present particular challenges for police assessment, with evidence suggesting higher rates of mutual orders and misidentification of predominant aggressors in same-sex partnerships.13 When police independently issue DVOs without judicial oversight, these systemic biases may operate unchecked, potentially resulting in both under-protection of some vulnerable victims and over-policing of marginalized communities across Queensland.
The problem of misidentification
One of the most concerning aspects of police-issued DVOs in Queensland is the well-documented problem of victim misidentification, where the actual victim of domestic violence is incorrectly identified as the perpetrator.14 This error can have devastating consequences, including criminalising victims, separating parents from children, and leaving actual perpetrators empowered while true victims face legal penalties.15
Women’s Legal Service Queensland has documented numerous cases where victims – predominantly women – were misidentified as perpetrators due to factors including language barriers, the manipulative behaviour of actual perpetrators, and insufficient investigation of relationship history.16
Its 2019 report Honest Misunderstanding or Something More? identified how perpetrators often strategically present to police as calm and reasonable while victims, responding to trauma, may appear emotional, incoherent, or even combative—leading officers to make incorrect assessments about the dynamics at play.17
The risk of misidentification is particularly acute in cases involving coercive control, where the predominant aggressor may have no visible injuries but has subjected the victim to long-term psychological abuse, isolation, and intimidation.18 When the victim finally resists – sometimes physically -they may be the one with an observable use of force that police witness or can document.19 Without comprehensive investigation of relationship history and patterns, which is rarely possible during an initial QPS response, these complex dynamics often remain obscured.
Judicial oversight in Queensland Magistrates Courts provides a crucial opportunity to correct these misidentifications before they result in inappropriate orders. When courts review police applications for DVOs, they can consider additional evidence, hear from both parties, and apply specialized knowledge of domestic violence dynamics that may reveal misidentifications before they cause further harm.20 Removing this oversight by granting police independent issuing authority eliminates this important safeguard in Queensland’s protection order system.
Victim agency and disempowerment
While protective in intent, police-issued DVOs can sometimes operate in ways that further disempower victims and remove their agency in the intervention process.21 Research from the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research consistently demonstrates that victim empowerment is a crucial factor in successful interventions and long-term safety outcomes.22 When QPS independently issues orders without meaningful victim input regarding their specific needs and circumstances, interventions may fail to address the actual risks victims face while creating new barriers to safety.
The Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Implementation Council emphasized that effective approaches must avoid reproducing controlling dynamics by imposing interventions on victims without their meaningful participation.23 Police-issued orders, particularly those implemented through mandatory policies that remove officer discretion, risk creating a secondary form of disempowerment that mimics the control dynamics of the abuse itself.24
This concern is particularly acute for marginalised victims in Queensland who may have well-founded reasons to distrust police involvement based on historical experiences of discrimination or harmful interventions.25 For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, immigrants, and LGBTIQ+ individuals in Queensland, police-imposed interventions without judicial oversight may represent an extension of systemic control rather than a pathway to safety.26 Queensland Magistrates Court processes, while imperfect, typically offer greater opportunity for victim input through legal representation, domestic violence support services, and more transparent decision-making frameworks.
Efficacy and safety outcomes
Proponents of police-issued DVOs often cite the potential for immediate protection as a primary justification. However, research on the efficacy of these approaches in improving safety outcomes in Queensland shows mixed results at best.27 While rapid intervention can indeed be crucial in high-risk situations, evidence suggests that the manner and context of intervention significantly impact its effectiveness.28
A study by the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research found that protection orders were most effective when victims had meaningful input into their terms, believed the system had treated them fairly, and felt the intervention addressed their specific needs—conditions more commonly associated with court-issued rather than police-issued orders.29
Furthermore, research from Griffith University found rapid but poorly tailored interventions sometimes created a false sense of security while failing to address underlying risk factors, potentially leaving Queensland victims vulnerable to continued abuse.30
Importantly, Queensland court data indicates that police-issued temporary protection notices are more frequently violated than court-issued orders, possibly reflecting lower perceived legitimacy among respondents.31 This finding aligns with procedural justice research suggesting that compliance with legal directives correlates strongly with perceptions of fair process—a perception more difficult to establish in field-issued police orders than in Queensland Magistrates Court proceedings with greater procedural protections.32
Conclusion
While the urgency of protecting domestic violence victims in Queensland is undeniable, empowering the Queensland Police Service with independent responsibility for issuing domestic violence orders represents a concerning shift in legal authority that risks undermining fundamental principles of justice without necessarily improving safety outcomes. The separation of powers between police and judicial functions serves crucial protective purposes that should not be casually discarded, even in pursuit of worthy goals.
The evidence highlights significant concerns regarding procedural fairness, QPS training limitations, systemic biases, victim misidentification, and disempowerment that arise when police assume quasi-judicial functions in domestic violence cases in Queensland. These concerns are not merely theoretical but are documented in research across Queensland communities where police have been granted expanded powers in this domain.
As Queensland continues to strengthen its response to domestic and family violence following the landmark Not Now, Not Ever report and subsequent reforms, it should prioritise approaches that maintain appropriate separation of powers while enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. By preserving judicial oversight of domestic violence orders while improving the coordination between police, courts, and support services, Queensland can better protect victims while upholding fundamental principles of justice for all its citizens.
The Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Bill 2025 was introduced to parliament on April 30, 2025, and referred to the Education, Arts and Communities Committee for inquiry. Submissions to the inquiry will close on 30 May 2025 and a public hearing is to be held on 9 June 2025.
Douglas Anderson is a consulting solicitor at Taylor Rose.
Footnotes
1 Queensland Law Society, “Submission to the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce: Options for Legislating Against Coercive Control” (2021), 14.
2 Douglas, Heather, “Do We Need a Specific Domestic Violence Offence?” (2015) 39 Melbourne University Law Review 434, 456-458.
3 Re Bowen [2013] QSC 327, [27].
4 Queensland Police Service, “Operational Procedures Manual: Chapter 9 – Domestic Violence” (2021), 9.3.1.
5 Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, “Police-issued Protection Orders: Perceptions and Experiences of Respondents” (2019), 23-26.
6 Bond, Christine et al., “Procedural Justice in Policing: The Queensland Community Engagement Trial” (Queensland University of Technology, 2014), 78-81.
7 Magistrates Court of Queensland, “Annual Report 2019-2020” (2020), 26-28.
8 Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, “Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland” (2015), 230-232.
9 Magistrates Court of Queensland, “Domestic and Family Violence Specialist Courts: Evaluation Report” (2020), 41-43.
10 Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women in Prison Report” (2019), 53-55.
11 Nancarrow, Heather, “Unintended Consequences of Domestic Violence Law: Gendered Aspirations and Racialised Realities” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 124-126.
12 Queensland Corrective Services, “Annual Statistical Report 2020-21” (2021), 32-34.
13 LGBTIQ+ Legal Service, “Addressing Domestic and Family Violence in LGBTIQ+ Communities” (Queensland, 2020), 28-30.
14 Women’s Legal Service Queensland, “Honest Misunderstanding or Something More? Misidentification of the ‘Primary Aggressor’ in Domestic Violence Cases in Queensland” (2019), 4-6.
15 Mansour, Julia, “Women Defendants to AVOs: What is Their Experience of the Justice System?” (Women’s Legal Service NSW, 2014), 17-19.
16 Women’s Legal Service Queensland, “Honest Misunderstanding or Something More? Misidentification of the ‘Primary Aggressor’ in Domestic Violence Cases in Queensland” (2019), 11-13.
17 Ibid., 22-24.
18 Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board, “Annual Report 2017-18” (2018), 59-61.
19 Douglas, Heather, “Legal Systems Abuse and Coercive Control” (2018) 18(1) Criminology & Criminal Justice 84, 87-89.
20 Queensland Courts, “Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act Benchbook” (2021), Ch 7.4.
21 Nancarrow, Heather, “Unintended Consequences of Domestic Violence Law: Gendered Aspirations and Racialised Realities” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 167-169.
22 Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, “Victim Empowerment in Domestic Violence Interventions” (2020), 34-36.
23 Domestic and Family Violence Implementation Council, “Final Report” (Queensland Government, 2019), 72-74.
24 Douglas, Heather, “The Criminal Law’s Response to Domestic Violence: What’s Going On?” (2008) 30(3) Sydney Law Review 439, 445-447.
25 Blagg, Harry et al., “Innovative Models in Addressing Violence Against Indigenous Women” (ANROWS, 2018), 87-89.
26 Cunneen, Chris and Tauri, Juan, “Indigenous Criminology” (Policy Press, 2016), the 134-136; LGBTIQ+ Legal Service, “Addressing Domestic and Family Violence in LGBTIQ+ Communities” (Queensland, 2020), 41-43.
27 Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, “Evaluation of the Integrated Service Response and High Risk Teams Trial” (2019), 56-58.
28 Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, “Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland” (2015), 288-290.
29 Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, “Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Reducing Domestic Violence Recidivism” (2020), 45-47.
30 Meyer, Silke, “Domestic Violence, Risk and Security: Practitioner’s Experiences” (Routledge, 2020), 112-114.
31 Magistrates Court of Queensland, “Annual Report 2020-2021” (2021), 38-40.
32 Bond, Christine et al., “Procedural Justice in Policing: The Queensland Community Engagement Trial” (Queensland University of Technology, 2014), 92-94.
Share this article