QLD Breach of DVO - Will Partner Face Jail Time?

[Jodes24]

Hi.

This is my first time here. I was just wanting to know what kind of sentencing is normal here in QLD for breaches of DVO?

The night of the incident, my partner and I were both drinking. He pushed me, I hit him, then he restrained me. I called the police because I was quite drunk and wasn’t thinking at the time and he was taken away and is now on bail.

Because I hit him as well his lawyer advised that he plead not guilty. I have been summoned to appear in his court case next month and I am really worried he might get sent away. I do not think he deserves to go to prison considering it was the both of us that were involved.

I know this isn’t up to me but just wanted to know if anyone knows what kind of sentence there is for this kind of thing?

Thanks

 

[Tim W]

Let's talk about what we are really talking about.'

1. No, you cannot vary your evidence to try and influence the outcome of the matter.
   When you go to court you will have to tell the truth, and all of it,
   in accordance with the oat h you will take as a witness.
   
   So if you lie under oath, (including lying by leaving stuff out, or
   by pretending to be unsure, or by pretending to not remember stuff, or
   by pretending that you were too drunk to remember,
   then you can be committing an offence yourself.
   
   
2. His defence is his (and his lawyer's) problem, not yours.
   Understand that if he tries to influence you to say, or not say,
   something in court, then he is committing a further offence.
   
   
3. .It's really not possible to speculate on that a penalty might be in any given case.
   It depends on the offence, the facts and circumstances, and the history of the individual.

 

[Clancy]

Good information from Tim, however you 'can' vary your evidence if it 'is' more truthful.

You are entitled to request police not to press charges, they are entitled to refuse that request.

But going by your story - he struck first by pushing you, that's assault - then you struck him out of revenge not self defense, so that also is assault, so you both should be in trouble, but the police arrested him only, so their version of events must be something else.

 

[Tim W]

You 'can' vary your evidence if it 'IS' more truthful.

This is a dangerous suggestion.
There are no degrees of truth.
That's why you make an oath that your evidence will be
"...the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

You are entitled to request police not to press charges, they are entitled to refuse that request.

Actually, the decision about whether or not to prosecute is not yours.
Nor is it likely that your (lack of) willingness to be a witness will be a key factor in their decision.
This is because you can be summonsed (ordered by the court) to give evidence.
In which case, refer to my earlier post.

But going by your story - he struck first by pushing you, that's assault - then you struck him out of revenge not self defense, so that also is assault, so you both should be in trouble, but the police arrested him only, so their version of events must be something else.

Not an unreasonable set of conclusions.
It is likely however that the police's starting presumption will be
that the complainant is a victim, not an offender.

 

[Clancy]

This is dangerous advice.
There are no degrees of truth.
That's why you make an oath that your evidence will be
"...the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."Actually, the decision about whether or not to prosecute is not yours.
Nor is it likely that your (lack of) willingness to be a witness will be a key factor in their decision.
This is because you can be summonsed (ordered by the court) to give evidence.
In which case, refer to my earlier post.Not an unreasonable set of conclusions.
It is likely however that the police's starting presumption will be
that the complainant is a victim, not an offender.

1) Telling a person to try to be more truthful is a dangerous suggestion?

2) Do not twist my words to try and look smart (although I get that's what lawyers do) - I did not say she has ultimate control over weather or not to prosecute.

Stating your desire not to prosecute may not carry a lot of weight but it will carry some weight... The main thing is the police know your motivations for doing that may not necessarily be in your best interests.

It occurred to me that his reason for pushing you might be that he felt you were going to hit him? You did subsequently hit him and presumably that is why he held you down? But the court will look at the 'history of the individual' as Tim W says before accepting any such scenario.

 

[Tim W]

1) advising a person to try to be more truthful is dangerous advice?

Suggesting to a regular person that you can "vary" your evidence is a dangerous suggestion.
That way lies lying in the box, contempt of court, and perversion of the course of justice.
Your suggestion is that somehow, there is an alternative to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
If evidence is given in accordance with the oath, then there is no scope to "vary" it.

2) do not twist my words to try and look smart (although i get that's what lawyers do) - i did not say she has ultimate control over weather or not to prosecute.

I was addressing the OP, not you.

Stating your desire not to prosecute may not carry allot of weight but it will carry some weight.... the main thing is the police know your motivations for doing that may not necessarily be in your best interests.

Your phrase "some weight" is consistent with what I said about the complainants willingness not being a "key factor" in the police's decision to prosecute.

Many police will tell you that the phrase most commonly heard in intimate partner assault situations is
"I don't want him charged! I don't want him charged!"
In the operational "moment", police do not typically give much weight to such statements
(the main game is to see to the welfare of any victims, and restore order to the scene).

And even when "factored in" during an investigation, such statements do not always and automatically determine what the police do next.

 

[Clancy]

Suggesting to a regular person that you can "vary" your evidence is dangerous advice.
That way lies lying in the box, contempt of court, and perversion of the course of justice.
Your suggestion is that somehow, there is an alternative to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
If evidence is given in accordance with the oath, then there is no scope to "vary" it.I was addressing the OP, not you. Your phrase "some weight" is consistent with what I said about the complainants willingness not being a "key factor" in the police's decision to prosecute.

Many police will tell you that the phrase most commonly heard in intimate partner assault situations is
"I don't want him charged! I don't want him charged!"
In the operational "moment", police do not typically give much weight to such statements
(the main game is to see to the welfare of any victims, and restore order to the scene).

And even when "factored in" during an investigation, such statements do not always and automatically determine what the police do next.

Saying the same thing differently.

But, let me highlight this line;

"Many police will tell you that the phrase most commonly heard in intimate partner assault situations is
"I don't want him charged! I don't want him charged!""

I highly recommend the OP consider this point carefully! Meaning love and loyalty is wonderful, but it should not cost your safety.

 

[James Dylan]

Do you know what condition on his DVO that he breached? Was it the condition that says “The Respondent must be of good behaviour towards the Aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the Aggrieved”?

If that was the only condition that he’s breached, and given that you were both intoxicated at the time and how you don’t want him charged, then I’m surprised that Prosecutions would still run with it in Court.

For one thing, their only witness to the matter (you) would be considered a hostile witness.

But depending on your partners criminal history, the odds are that if he’s ultimately found guilty, he’ll get a fine, which he can elect to put on SPER. Although I’d plead ‘Not Guilty’ to it as well, citing the defence of provocation (from you in your intoxicated state).

 

[sammy01]

"Vary your evidence" if it is "more truthful". On the night when the cops are called - he slapped me...

When in court with a variation of the truth, he caressed me lightly on the cheek... Oh I'm good at this... Gonna write a book - Fifty Million Shades of Family Law.... Gonna be a hit...

I reckon changing the 'evidence to make it 'more' truthful, is gonna make OP an unreliable witness...

Oh bugger, this thread is like months old... grrr

 

[James Dylan]

"Vary your evidence" if it is "more truthful". On the night when the cops are called - he slapped me...

When in court with a variation of the truth, he caressed me lightly on the cheek... Oh I'm good at this... Gonna write a book - Fifty Million Shades of Family Law.... Gonna be a hit...

I reckon changing the 'evidence to make it 'more' truthful, is gonna make OP an unreliable witness...

Oh bugger, this thread is like months old... grrr

I’d like 3 copies...