What is the difference between an interim and a final intervention order?
An interim intervention order (IVO) in Victoria is made on an urgent and ex parte basis, meaning the respondent is not present in court and has not had an opportunity to be heard. The Magistrates' Court makes the interim order on the basis of the applicant's evidence alone, and the order comes into force immediately on service. An interim order can impose significant conditions including no-contact conditions, exclusion from a residence, and restrictions on where the respondent can go.
A final intervention order is made after the respondent has been given the opportunity to appear and be heard. For a final order to be made, the court must be satisfied that the statutory grounds are established on the evidence. Under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the court must be satisfied that the respondent has committed family violence and is likely to continue to do so or do so again. Under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010, the grounds differ depending on the relationship between the parties.
The distinction between interim and final is not merely procedural. An interim order tells the court there is an urgent case for protection. A final order is a judicial finding on the evidence after both parties have been heard. Contesting the final order gives the respondent the opportunity to put their evidence before the court and to test the applicant's evidence.
What grounds must the applicant prove for a family violence IVO?
Under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the applicant must prove that the respondent has committed an act of family violence against the protected person and that the protected person is likely to be subjected to further acts of family violence by the respondent. Both limbs must be established.
Family violence under the Act is broadly defined. It includes not only physical violence but also conduct that is threatening or intimidating, that causes the protected person to be fearful for their safety, that is economically abusive, that is psychologically harmful, and other conduct listed in section 5 of the Act. The definition is wide and extends beyond physical altercations.
The standard of proof in IVO proceedings is the civil standard: the balance of probabilities. This is lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant must show it is more probable than not that the grounds are established. This lower standard means that contested hearings in IVO proceedings are not equivalent to criminal trials; the nature and quality of the evidence required to establish grounds is different.
What happens at the contested hearing?
The contested hearing takes place in the Magistrates' Court. Both the applicant and the respondent can call witnesses, including each other as witnesses. The applicant typically gives evidence first and is cross-examined by the respondent's lawyer. The respondent then has the opportunity to give their own evidence and call any supporting witnesses.
At the close of evidence, both sides make submissions addressing the statutory grounds and whether they have been established. The magistrate then decides whether to make the final order. If the magistrate finds the grounds are not established, the interim order is discharged and no final order is made. If the grounds are established, the magistrate makes the final order and determines its conditions and duration.
Final intervention orders can be made for any period up to 10 years, and in some cases for a longer period or until a further order is made. The duration depends on the nature of the conduct alleged, the relationship between the parties, and any other factors the court considers relevant. Conditions on a final order can include no-contact conditions, exclusion from premises, and restrictions on approach to the protected person.
What are the alternatives to contesting the order?
Contesting an intervention order is not always the only or the best option. Two alternatives are available that do not involve the respondent admitting to the underlying conduct.
The first is consent without admissions. The respondent consents to the final order being made but does not admit to any of the conduct alleged by the applicant. The order is made on the basis of that consent, with the conditions agreed or set by the court. This avoids the contested hearing and its associated cost and stress, while not constituting an admission of any wrongdoing. In some matters, where the outcome of a contested hearing is uncertain and the conditions of the order are workable, consent without admissions is a practical resolution.
The second option is an undertaking. A respondent can offer the court an undertaking to behave in a specified way in lieu of an intervention order. An undertaking does not carry the criminal consequences of breaching an intervention order; breach of an undertaking is dealt with differently from breach of a court order. However, undertakings are not always accepted by the court in family violence matters where the court considers an order is necessary for the protection of the applicant. Your lawyer will advise on whether an undertaking is realistic in your matter.
What must you do while an interim order is in place?
Compliance with the interim order is mandatory from the moment it is served. The conditions of an interim order are not suspended because the respondent intends to contest the final order. Breaching a condition of an interim intervention order is a criminal offence under section 123 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, and can result in arrest, remand in custody, and a separate criminal charge.
Even indirect contact, such as asking a mutual friend to pass on a message, can constitute a breach of a no-contact condition. Attending a shared address, attending a school or workplace if excluded by the order, and communicating via third parties are all forms of contact that can be treated as a breach. The conditions should be read carefully and complied with precisely.
If a condition of the interim order is impractical (for example, a prohibition on attending a place of work that the respondent shares with the protected person), an application to vary the order can be made. That application should be made promptly rather than waiting and hoping for informal resolution.
What are the long-term consequences of a final intervention order?
A final intervention order is not a criminal conviction and does not appear on a standard police check as a finding of guilt. However, it is recorded on the Family Violence Information Sharing system and is visible to police and to certain organisations that have access to that system.
In some professional and regulatory contexts, the existence of a final intervention order must be disclosed. For example, persons seeking a working with children check, a firearms licence, or employment in certain fields involving children or vulnerable persons may be required to disclose the existence of any intervention order. The specific disclosure obligations vary by the nature of the role and the governing legislation.
A breach of a final intervention order is a criminal offence under section 123 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment for a first offence and 5 years for a subsequent offence. The consequences of breach are therefore materially more serious than the existence of the order itself.
How does a lawyer help in contesting an intervention order?
A lawyer appearing at an IVO contested hearing can cross-examine the applicant and any witnesses, identify inconsistencies in the evidence, make submissions about whether the statutory grounds are established on the balance of probabilities, and present the respondent's own evidence in the most effective way. The decision about whether to give evidence personally at the contested hearing is one that should be made with legal advice.
A lawyer can also assess whether consent without admissions or a negotiated set of conditions is a better outcome than risking the contested hearing. This assessment requires understanding the strength of the applicant's evidence, the respondent's own circumstances, and the likely conditions the court would impose if the matter is contested and the grounds are found to be established.
Contact Tringali Lawyers to arrange a consultation. The first meeting covers the order, the grounds alleged, and the realistic options available to you. Same-day responses to new enquiries, and urgent matters are seen within 24 to 48 hours.
