I think you will find that by contest it means an interim one is in place and the contest bit relates to a final hearing if he does not consent.. As i have clearly said INTERIM orders are taken out willy nilly WITHOUT ANY CONTESTING. That bit comes later during COURT APPEARANCES where the INTERIM order the police get in almost all circumstances is either kept in place or dismissed but dont let me prove you wrong again or make me shout, i have a sore throat... OP, am i correct, is an interim one in place?
VIC Consenting without admission.
- Thread starter james4004
- Start date
You are making an assumption.
I am not making an assumption.
I am not disputing that interim orders are granted when you so much as look at your ex. Pointing out what usually happens is not what the OP is asking about.
He wants to know if he should consent or fight. I pointed out another option. And that if values his gun license he does an undertaking or he fights.
I am not making an assumption.
I am not disputing that interim orders are granted when you so much as look at your ex. Pointing out what usually happens is not what the OP is asking about.
He wants to know if he should consent or fight. I pointed out another option. And that if values his gun license he does an undertaking or he fights.
Are you purposely going round in circles trying to prove something you can't because you are talking nonsense
You have evaded actually pointing put what i asked by simply posting a load of tosh. If it makes you think you are any more right....Kudos. I bet you are still 100% incorrectumundo
(That bloke clicks ignore)
Last edited:
I am quite happy to stand by my simple and easy to understand answer which has not varied throughout this post.
I find it surprising that my posts exceed your ability to understand. I don't think I can make them simpler to understand so suspect the problem is not my posts.
I have been very consistent in what I have said. I have not gone in circles, I have not twisted my responses, I have not evaded the OP's request for information. I have continued posting the same answer.
I can't answer your question about whether an interim order is in place, I am not the OP. And your question totally misses the point of what the OP is asking. I am trying to ensure the OP is not confused by irrelevant questions about interim FVIOs.
You seem to have difficulty seeing that 'interim orders' are simply not relevant to this OP. It may well be different for other people, interim orders may well be easier to get than a beer at Young and Jacksons, but this revelation is not going to help the OP.
I find it surprising that my posts exceed your ability to understand. I don't think I can make them simpler to understand so suspect the problem is not my posts.
I have been very consistent in what I have said. I have not gone in circles, I have not twisted my responses, I have not evaded the OP's request for information. I have continued posting the same answer.
I can't answer your question about whether an interim order is in place, I am not the OP. And your question totally misses the point of what the OP is asking. I am trying to ensure the OP is not confused by irrelevant questions about interim FVIOs.
You seem to have difficulty seeing that 'interim orders' are simply not relevant to this OP. It may well be different for other people, interim orders may well be easier to get than a beer at Young and Jacksons, but this revelation is not going to help the OP.
Rod Said. “ ...'interim orders' are simply not relevant to this OP.”
That’s my understanding from what the OP has posted also. He mentions the application but says nothing about Interim Orders. While this could just be an oversight on OP’s part, it is also probable...in Victoria, you can be served with an application and summons only (no Interim Order) and will still have the opportunity to consent or contest the order on the Hearing date.
That’s my understanding from what the OP has posted also. He mentions the application but says nothing about Interim Orders. While this could just be an oversight on OP’s part, it is also probable...in Victoria, you can be served with an application and summons only (no Interim Order) and will still have the opportunity to consent or contest the order on the Hearing date.
Kiddies, calm down. Stop trying to point score - because I'm gonna win...
so 30 seconds of research and I find a reputable source
Options for dealing with an intervention order | Victoria Legal Aid
It is also recently updated... So I'm confident it is reliable.
My understanding was in NSW undertakings were dead... Oh funny - get it because undertakers... Oh what ever...
BUT in Vic they are not.. BUT ol' mate the original poster is gonna be the only one who'll have half a chance of knowing the answer to this one... For an undertaking to be accepted, it isn't the judge who decides... The applicant has to agree... Now when I had one of these hanging over me there was no way the ex was gonna agree to anything that loosened the noose around my neck... I reckon same applies for this guy...
So what about guns and gun licence. Again, 30 seconds research...
Victoria Police - Intervention Orders and Firearms
So in Vic, it is up to the cops and the applicant... So IF the applicant is vindictive and is doing this just to get at ol' mate, then he can forget her agreeing to him keeping his guns.. Ol' mate - have the cops come and seized your guns yet?
so 30 seconds of research and I find a reputable source
Options for dealing with an intervention order | Victoria Legal Aid
It is also recently updated... So I'm confident it is reliable.
My understanding was in NSW undertakings were dead... Oh funny - get it because undertakers... Oh what ever...
BUT in Vic they are not.. BUT ol' mate the original poster is gonna be the only one who'll have half a chance of knowing the answer to this one... For an undertaking to be accepted, it isn't the judge who decides... The applicant has to agree... Now when I had one of these hanging over me there was no way the ex was gonna agree to anything that loosened the noose around my neck... I reckon same applies for this guy...
So what about guns and gun licence. Again, 30 seconds research...
Victoria Police - Intervention Orders and Firearms
So in Vic, it is up to the cops and the applicant... So IF the applicant is vindictive and is doing this just to get at ol' mate, then he can forget her agreeing to him keeping his guns.. Ol' mate - have the cops come and seized your guns yet?
I think OP may have already done some research and be aware of his options...he mentions at the outset he will likely consent without admissions and also makes mention of undertakings.
I suspect (assumption) that the reason the police did not pursue an Interim Order (if there is not one), and just made the application, is that according to OP, the allegations are historic (no immediate threat to the applicant). OP also mentions that the only reason the police made the application was due to the guns.
An application, in the absence of an Interim Order, is the only route that would allow OP, with some certainty, to retain his guns (at least temporarily). We have no idea either why he has/needs a gun licence/guns.
An Interim Order, more likely than not, as thatbloke has said, would have resulted in the guns being confiscated. In Victoria...
I suspect (assumption) that the reason the police did not pursue an Interim Order (if there is not one), and just made the application, is that according to OP, the allegations are historic (no immediate threat to the applicant). OP also mentions that the only reason the police made the application was due to the guns.
An application, in the absence of an Interim Order, is the only route that would allow OP, with some certainty, to retain his guns (at least temporarily). We have no idea either why he has/needs a gun licence/guns.
An Interim Order, more likely than not, as thatbloke has said, would have resulted in the guns being confiscated. In Victoria...
The applicant here is likely the police. If so the police need to agree to an undertaking, not the ex, and the police do in some circumstances agree to undertakings.
That's what I was thinking.
It's physical damage and punching walls is almost always done as a show of force to intimidate.
The Police won't back down imo. Even if the aggrieved does, they'll run it with a hostile aggrieved.
Similar threads
