Common questions about intervention orders in Victoria.

A family violence intervention order under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 applies between people in a family-like relationship. A personal safety intervention order under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 applies outside that scope, with different eligibility tests.

Victorian law provides two distinct intervention order regimes. A family violence intervention order (FVIO) is governed by the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and is available where the parties are in a family-like relationship, which includes spouses, de facto partners, parents and children, siblings, and other relatives, as well as people who share a household or a caring relationship. A personal safety intervention order (PSIO) is governed by the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 and applies to relationships outside that family or domestic scope, typically neighbours, workmates, or acquaintances. The practical conditions that can be imposed under both types of order are similar: they can restrict contact, exclude a person from a residence, and prohibit certain conduct. However, the grounds that must be proved in the Magistrates' Court differ between the two Acts, and the police investigation and family violence response that typically accompanies an FVIO matter is not present in the same way for a PSIO matter. Which type of order has been made against you affects the tactical options available.

Read the conditions carefully and comply from the moment you receive the order, even if you intend to contest it. Breaching a condition is a separate criminal offence. Speak to a lawyer before the first mention date.

The moment an interim intervention order is served on you, its conditions are legally binding. You must comply with every condition from that point, whether or not you believe the order was made on accurate information and whether or not you intend to contest it at the next court date. Common conditions include not contacting the protected person directly or indirectly, not attending certain premises, and sometimes conditions about children or property. The indirect contact condition is worth noting carefully: sending a message through a mutual friend or family member can constitute a breach even if you did not contact the protected person yourself. A breach of the order is a separate criminal offence, distinct from whatever conduct led to the original order being made. The first mention date is usually within days to a few weeks of service. Contact a lawyer before that date. The first mention is the point at which decisions about contesting, consenting without admissions, or negotiating conditions are made, and those decisions have consequences that are much harder to undo later.

Yes. After an interim order, the matter proceeds to a contested hearing where the applicant must prove the statutory grounds. Whether to contest, negotiate undertakings, or consent without admissions is a tactical decision.

Yes, a final intervention order can be contested. After the interim order is made, the matter is listed for a contested hearing in the Magistrates' Court. At that hearing, the applicant (who is typically the protected person or, in family violence matters, often Victoria Police) must prove the grounds for the order on the balance of probabilities. For a family violence intervention order the applicant must show that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur again. For a personal safety intervention order the grounds are different and generally require proof of stalking, harassment, or repeated conduct. Contesting is not the only option. Consenting to the final order without admissions means the order is made but there is no finding of guilt or adverse finding of fact. Negotiating undertakings, which are not court orders but a formal agreement, is a third pathway. Which approach is appropriate depends on the evidence, the long-term consequences of each outcome, and the specific circumstances. This is a decision we work through carefully with each client before the contested hearing.

Yes. Either party can apply to vary or revoke an order if there has been a material change in circumstances. The court considers the safety of the protected person as the primary factor.

Both the respondent and the protected person can apply to the Magistrates' Court to vary or revoke an existing intervention order. Common reasons a respondent seeks a variation include a change in living arrangements, reconciliation, the children's arrangements requiring a degree of contact, or employment requiring attendance near a location covered by the order. The court's primary consideration in any variation application is the safety of the protected person. A variation will not be granted simply because the respondent wants it; there must be a genuine material change in circumstances that warrants revisiting the terms of the order. Courts treat variation applications involving family violence matters with caution, particularly where there is a history of repeated orders or prior breaches. It is worth understanding before making a variation application what evidence supports the changed circumstances and what the realistic prospect of the variation being granted actually is. We assess that before committing to the application.

Yes. Breach of an intervention order is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment, particularly where the breach involves direct contact, threats, or further violence. Even apparently minor breaches are prosecuted.

Yes, breach of an intervention order is treated seriously by Victorian courts. Under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, breach of a family violence intervention order is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The same framework applies under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. Courts do not treat breaches as technical or trivial matters, even where the respondent characterises the contact as minor (a short text message, attending a shared address briefly). A prior breach on your record is an aggravating factor for any subsequent breach. Multiple breaches are treated as a pattern of conduct and attract heavier penalties. In family violence contexts in particular, the court is alert to coercive control patterns, and what appears to be a minor contact can be understood in that broader context. If you have been charged with a breach, the question is not only the penalty for the specific breach but how the charge fits into the history of the matter and what that means for the overall strategy.