VIC AVO Breach - phone evidence

[Migz]

Marquis75, two questions so people can help you further. Is the child named on the AVO? Is there any clause in the AVO that states you cannot contact kinder? If your answer to both of these questions is NO, then I would be telling the the magistrate you will be taking this to trial, and seeking that the vic pol supply you with both "futher and better particulars" and a copy of the "victim impact statement".

Lastly can you tell us how many hours took place between the ex contacting police and then them contacting you?

P.S. In the meantime file the paperwork for her opening your mail and using it, as a separate court case...stick it to her. She wants you in jail and out of the childs life believe me my ex is the same...

 

[Scruff]

The lawyer in email asked me for her times. I called the kinder simply to work on the parenting order. I not trying to as they put it "locate a protected person" as I know full well what kinder she was meant to attend. It did not occur to me that what I did was seen as a breach.

That is your defence right there.

Don't bother with trying to have evidence excluded - it's unkikely to happen even if it was illegally obtained. Instead, focus on the fact that you were asked to provide information to your lawyer and that your lawyer did not advise you that calling the kinder might be a breach of the AVO. That is a perfectly valid defence.

In my opinion, your lawyer should have known better and has been reckless in regard to acting in your best interests.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

I have to admit, I have a similar clause in my Victorian Intervention Order (that I cannot "attempt to locate, follow the protected person(s), or keep them under surveillance") and I never for one minute thought that it would mean I could not contact a kinder or daycare of my children by phone to discuss the children in some way. This is the damn problem with these kinds of orders, they are vague and open to a lot of interpretation, and also end up having a much broader effective reach than probably was ever intended.

Another thing that occurred to me is that TECHNICALLY the wording of my IVO is contradictory, if you interpret it literally. My IVO states that I must not "contact the protected person(s) by any means". It also states that I must not "get another person to do anything the respondent must not do under this order". So that means, I cannot get another person to contact them. And then it states I may "communicate with a protected person through a lawyer and/or mediator". So which is it? I assume that effectively the lawyer/mediator is the exception to the rule as interpreted legally, but how can a legal layman even know what's up or down when there are such blatant contradictions??

Another is that I cannot "publish on the internet, by email or other electronic communication any material about the protected person(s)". So how exactly am I supposed to write to my lawyer by email to discuss my case if it may contain 'material' about them?? Technically that's a bloody breach too, and there isn't even any contradictory exception to that one, as best I can tell. Unless I'm missing something obvious, I feel like the wording just wasn't thought through. Not when we're supposed to take every word literally or face criminal charges!