So I'm the respondent in application for an intervention order and the police documentation has unintentionally revealed the current address of the person lodging the complaint. The police redacted the address with a texta, photocopied the original document and gave me a copy, but when holding the document up to the light, the redacted address becomes legible. What should I do about this? Should I tell the police? Should I save it for court and get a lawyer to use this information in some way (if the matter goes to court)? Should I completely ignore this? I've even heard of such cases being reported in the media. Any insights or past experiences would be appreciated. Thanks.
VIC What to do when police unintentionally reveal someone's address in an intervention order case?
- Thread starter tntn
- Start date
That's what I'd be doing ... If you want to tell anybody let it just be your lawyer. Can't see how it could be used to your advantage .... Won't be a revelation to anybody that cops screwed up.
Thanks for the thoughts. I wonder if maybe I could use the info to advantage if the applicant tries imposing an unreasonably large geographical restriction for an intervention order, but my suspicion (and hope) is that the case won't get up or even go to trial because most of the allegations are false and the true ones are minor. It's a shame that the police would mess up something as serious as this, but you're probably right that it's best not to make a fuss.
The usual condition is along the lines of 'within 50/200 Metres of place of residence/work' .... If the restriction is greater than 200 metres then I would be questioning why, you don't need to know the protected persons address to do that.
At this stage, no geographical range has been mentioned. I suppose I'm anticipating potentially mischeivous or vexatious uses of the case, since my view is that the substantive allegations are false. But I might be overthinking this a bit too much. Since in theory I don't know the geographical location of the applicatant, there's probably no need for geographical limits to be specified (other than the very general 'no more than 200m from the applicant's place of residence or work' or something similar to that). Anyway, thanks for thoughts. I'm suspecting that this police fuckup doesn't help me, though also doesn't hinder.
wow - with all respect and then some, I thought i was gonna get a crazy rant back. Bloody bad police work, but not something you wanna do anything about. Maybe.... ride past in 12 months and throw a water bomb filled with grass killer on their lawn. Apart from that... Nope. be a grown up.... But gee the water bomb idea sounds like fun... Mate the avo laws are a bit crazy. I'm all for making sure people are safe. My ex took an avo out on me and they were some hard days. I understand how it could make you a bit super defensive BUT yeah knowing the address due to some flimsly police work just goes to show how little the cops think of these avo things.
For what it is worth and I dont know the details of your situation.... BUT i loved my avo. 12 months where it was illegal to talk to my ex partner.... Finally some peace and quiet.
For what it is worth and I dont know the details of your situation.... BUT i loved my avo. 12 months where it was illegal to talk to my ex partner.... Finally some peace and quiet.
Last edited:
Thanks for the chuckles! I like your thinking. And it's a fair point to say that an intervention order creates peace for everyone. My preference would be if I had the option of a court undertaking, since I have a bit of concern that the intervention order is a bit too harsh against the respondent in cases where the applicant might be acting with ill intentions. But in my case, the undertaking option isn't available. It does seem in general that the intervention order requirements are strongly favourable towards an applicant, but I'm also happy to concede that this might actually to the job of providing better protection for some applicants who are in genuine danger.
