The researchers found there are limits to how judicial officers respond when dealing with such perpetrators, with those officers holding mixed views on the effectiveness of perpetrator interventions in DFV matters.

Such programs, the researchers noted, “are service and system responses to perpetrators of domestic and family violence that aim to change perpetrator attitudes and/or behaviours and prevent further incidents”.

“Judicial officers – justices, judges and magistrates – play an important role in perpetrator interventions by sentencing them, making family violence intervention orders and referring perpetrators to behaviour change programs,” the researchers said.

Despite this central role, the researchers noted, there was “little evidence” on the ways that judicial officers view or understand interventions and how they should be used.

The study revealed the effective use of perpetrator interventions in judicial officer decision-making, the researchers discovered, is hampered by limited judicial access to information about which (if any) perpetrator interventions have been previously used with a perpetrator; a lack of knowledge among judicial officers about perpetrator program referral options, in relation to both the availability and nature of programs available; and uncertainty over the role of the judicial officers in holding perpetrators to account.

According to ANROWS CEO Heather Nancarrow, those who work in and with our courts “have a crucial role to play in building systems that hold perpetrators of DFV to account for their actions”.

“When this is better understood, courts will be able to implement more consistent sentencing and improve other outcomes for perpetrators,” she said.

VIEW ALL

Lead researcher Dr Kate Fitz-Gibbon added that the judicial role in sentencing is of critical importance: “In recent years we have seen a pivot towards the perpetrator – to ensuring perpetrators are kept ‘in view’ and held to account.”

“We cannot achieve this without effective judicial intervention in those cases that do end up before our courts. Currently Australian judicial officers lack the information and systems needed to effectively utilise perpetrator interventions in the sentencing of domestic and family violence matters,” she argued.

The researchers made three recommendations for improving judicial practice moving forward: firstly, Dr Fitz-Gibbon said, guidance on seeking and making use of a perpetrator’s history of interventions including family violence intervention orders, prior sentences and program attendance must be developed.

“All Australian states and territories should look to introduce a central register of perpetrator intervention programs and referral options,” she said.

“Information is key. This register would ensure that the information to apply a risk-appropriate intervention is available as and when needed.”

It was further recommended that courts and judicial educational bodies consider exploring and developing guidance on the role of judicial officers in creating system accountability regarding perpetrators of DFV.

Clarity on the parameters of this role will allow for the development of more consistent sentencing and other outcomes for DFV perpetrators across jurisdictions, the researchers advised.

“This study sets out what is needed to ensure judges can effectively and consistently utilise perpetrator interventions in the sentencing of domestic and family violence offences,” Dr Fitz-Gibbon added.