Legal service for defendants in Apprehended Domestic Violen - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Legal service for defendants in Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) proceedings: An evaluation

Lily Trimboli

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

The Applied Research in Crime and Justice Conference

18 – 19 February 2015Slide2

BACKGROUNDDomestic violence is a significant problem with social, economic, health and financial consequences.

It encompasses physical violence, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, intimidation, and economic and social deprivation.

2Slide3

Domestic violence in AustraliaInternational Violence Against Women

Survey

(December

2002

– June 2003)

Of surveyed Australian women aged ≥ 18 years: 10% reported experiencing at least one incident of physical and/or sexual violence in the previous 12 months; and57% reported experiencing at least one incident of physical and/or sexual violence over their lifetime.

3Slide4

However, risk and severity of violence differed according to the status of the relationship. About 1 in 10 women in a current intimate relationship reported ever experiencing violence from their current

male partner.

36% of women who have had a past relationship reported experiencing physical or sexual violence from a

former

partner

(both within the relationship and after).

42% of women who experienced violence from a former intimate partner sustained injuries (bruises, swelling) in the most recent incident, whereas 35% of women who experienced violence from a current intimate partner sustained injuries.4Slide5

Crime Victimisation Survey

(ABS, July

2012

– July 2013)

When asked about their most

recent

incident of physical violence, female victims aged ≥ 15 years reported that:the offender was male (77.3%) and known to her (75.6%); in 47.8% of cases, her own home was the location of the incident;48.4% of incidents were not reported to the police.

5Slide6

LegislationIn NSW, a primary response to domestic violence is the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO).

The

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act

2007

(NSW) empowers local courts to make ADVOs to protect individuals from future harmful or threatening behaviour by defendants.

Proscribed behaviours include assaults, harassment, threats, stalking and intimidation.6Slide7

‘Domestic relationship’The legislation recognises a range of relationships as ‘domestic’:

a spouse of the person seeking protection;

a de facto partner;

in an intimate relationship with the protected person;

living in the same household as the protected person;

a long-term resident in the same residential facility;

dependent on the paid or unpaid care of the protected person; part of the protected person’s Indigenous kinship system or extended family; and/or a relative (including step- and in-law relationships). Each of these relationships could be current or former.

7Slide8

RESEARCH AIMSTo determine whether the provision of legal advice by a duty solicitor to ADVO defendants reduces the likelihood of breaches.

To determine the level of satisfaction amongst defendants and key stakeholders with the operation and implementation of the defendant solicitor pilot program at Burwood Local Court.

8Slide9

Legal service for defendants in ADVO proceedingsLegal Aid NSW employed two female private solicitors to advise and represent unrepresented ADVO defendants on AVO list day at Burwood Local Court.

Defendants with both stand-alone ADVOs and related charges were eligible. Solicitors ran simple guilty pleas.

Solicitors advocated to achieve workable orders that both protected the applicant and could be reasonably complied with by the defendant.

Service lasted for 15 weeks

(26 July – 8 November 2013).

9Slide10

METHODSlide11

Impact of program on breachesObjective:

to determine if providing legal advice to defendants in ADVO proceedings reduces the frequency of breaches.

Structured interviews with two groups of protected persons:

Non-intervention phase

(baseline measure):

n = 82

Intervention phase: n = 65Both groups were interviewed about their experiences of proscribed behaviours during two time periods:the month prior to applying for the ADVO; and

the month

after

the ADVO was served on the defendant.

Pre-post ADVO changes in proscribed behaviours

in the two groups of protected persons were

compared.

11Slide12

Both groups of protected persons were asked the same core questions about proscribed behaviours in each of the two interviews (pre-ADVO application and post-ADVO service).

p

roscribed behaviours:

stalking;

verbal abuse;

approaches to family, friends, colleagues;

intimidation; physical assault; andthreats of physical assault.

12Slide13

Defendant satisfaction with pilot programStructured interview schedule, closed and open questions.

Key questions:

difficulty of understanding the ADVO conditions imposed by magistrate

(5-point

Likert

scale);

whether defendant believed he/she could abide by conditions; andinformation provided by solicitor about the consequences of breaching the conditions (open-ended).29 telephone interviews conducted by male interviewer during the last 5 weeks of the pilot program.

13Slide14

Stakeholder satisfaction with pilot programSemi-structured telephone interviews conducted with 20 stakeholders after pilot program ended.

Categories of stakeholders invited for interview: magistrates, registrars, police prosecutors, Domestic Violence Liaison Officers (police), defendant duty solicitors, Legal Aid NSW solicitors, Legal

Aid NSW staff and

WDVCAS staff.

14Slide15

Each stakeholder was asked five core questions:Do you think there is a need for this legal service for ADVO defendants?

What aspects of the pilot program

worked well

? What were the

positive

features of the program?

What aspects of the pilot program did not work well? What were the negative features of the program? What improvements could be made in the operation of the program?

Overall, what is your opinion of the program?

15Slide16

RESULTSSlide17

Type

of proscribed behaviour

Non-intervention phase

(N = 82)

Intervention

phase

(N = 65)

Pre-AVO

application

Post-AVO served

Pre-AVO application

Post-AVO served

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Stalking

20

24.4

3

3.7

18

27.7

7

10.8

Physical assault

47

57.3

1

1.2

48

73.9

0

0.0Threats of physical assault3947.622.43046.257.7Verbal abuse6579.31315.94670.8913.9Contact others3340.21214.61929.71015.4Intimidation 4554.91619.83960.01218.5

17

Impact of program on breachesSlide18

Compared to the four weeks before applying for their ADVO, during the four weeks after the ADVO was served, there was a reduction in the proportion of protected persons who reported experiencing each type of behaviour proscribed by the legislation.

These pre-post ADVO reductions were statistically significant for

both

groups of protected persons

.

18Slide19

BUT there were no significant differences between

the two groups of protected persons.

During the first four weeks that the ADVO was active, it was

equally

effective for most of the protected persons interviewed, regardless of whether they were interviewed before the legal service was implemented or during its implementation, and regardless of whether the associated defendant had received legal advice.

This suggests that providing free legal advice to ADVO defendants did not result in fewer breaches of the proscribed behaviours.

19Slide20

Defendant satisfaction with pilot programOf 29 defendants interviewed:

90% were male;

average age of 38 years;

31% were interviewed with a qualified interpreter; and

52% were at court for both the ADVO and associated charges

(e.g. common assault, stalking).

20Slide21

97% reported that the solicitor explained the ADVO conditions.57% stated that it was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to understand the ADVO conditions imposed by the magistrate, but 21% stated that it was ‘hard’ or ‘very hard’ to understand the conditions.

97% felt that the solicitor had treated them respectfully or very respectfully.

86% were satisfied or very satisfied with the manner in which the solicitor dealt with their matter in the courtroom.

86% stated that they would recommend the legal service to other people in a situation similar to their own.

21Slide22

What did the solicitor say would happen if you breach or break any of the ADVO conditions?Most defendants

reported that the solicitors had explained the serious ramifications of breaching

the conditions:

59% stated

that the solicitor had explained that they would spend two years in gaol and be fined $5,500;

24% reported

that the solicitor told them they would be arrested/prosecuted; and 3.5% stated that the solicitor had informed them that a breach would result in gaol time.22Slide23

Stakeholder satisfaction with pilot programDo you think there is a need for this legal service for ADVO defendants?

18 of the 20 stakeholders interviewed said there was a clear need for free legal advice and representation at the first mention.

Some believed this type of legal service

is particularly necessary

in areas with a

high proportion of people of non-English speaking backgrounds who may not understand the language

and/or the Australian legal system.23Slide24

Defendants who would otherwise have been unrepresented received legal advice regarding their specific circumstances and were represented in court. So, negotiated and practicable ADVOs were developed reflecting the unique needs of both the protected persons and the defendants. Defendants left the courthouse understanding the ADVO conditions, the implications of each condition and the ramifications of breaching any condition

.

Solicitors could

identify issues affecting defendants’ offending behaviour early on and

make referrals to services

(e.g. housing, mental health, relationships, drug/alcohol, immigration)

. 24What aspects of the pilot program worked well? What were the positive features of the program?Slide25

Program had positive consequences for the court, other stakeholders and protected persons: the experience and skill set of the two defendant

solicitors meant magistrates received clear and concise advice, so the

court

process

ran

smoothly;

matters were finalised more quickly due to the prior negotiation and resolution of issues, saving time and ultimately cost; relevant stakeholders were prompted to devise new streamlined processes (e.g

. the DVLOs designed an instruction sheet for defendants, this formed the basis for negotiations between the various

parties);

25Slide26

program eased the workload of other stakeholders;providing legal advice enabled defendants

to

make informed decisions at the first

mention. This:

reduced,

or even

eliminated, the need for adjournments; meant that neither defendants nor the associated protected persons had to return to court on numerous occasions. This, in turn, made the courthouse less crowded; and the court process less stressful, less inconvenient and more efficient for all parties, including the court.

26Slide27

What aspects of the pilot program did not work well? What were the negative features of the program?

Some stakeholders reported

no

negative features.

Among those

who noted negative features, the emphasis was on processes which, at times, did not operate smoothly, for example:

due to the

high volume of matters on AVO list

day, there were delays

for key participants,

including the protected persons

and DVLOs, who had to wait for the solicitors to mention their matters after consulting with the relevant

defendants;

at

times, interpreters in the relevant languages had not been appointed,

resulting in adjournments.

27Slide28

What improvements could be made in the operation of the program?Stakeholders

suggested

administrative

improvements to increase efficiency on

AVO list

day:

prior to list day, book relevant interpreters;stagger the court list;encourage protected persons to attend court on list day to allow negotiations and written agreements between

the

solicitors, particularly regarding contact

arrangements.

28Slide29

Overall opinion of legal serviceAll

stakeholders believed that the legal service was valuable and effective.

The

absence of the legal service at the end of the pilot period was lamented by several

stakeholders

who perceived that more matters were adjourned

because defendants had to seek legal advice or apply for legal aid.29Slide30

CONCLUSIONSSlide31

Providing legal advice and representation to ADVO defendants does not result in fewer breaches of ADVOs

during the first four weeks after the orders

are served on defendants.

HOWEVER

Defendants accessing the new legal service report

high levels of

satisfaction with it.Stakeholders associated with the provision of the service are strongly supportive of it, reporting that it has a beneficial effect on court processes. 31