Login
Local Court avoids gender discrimination finding over safe room concerns
A man seeking an apprehended domestic violence order in the Local Court has failed to prove gender discrimination after he was refused entry into the safe room.
Naomi Neilson
Despite being told the day prior that he could enter, a man was told by a family and domestic violence specialist worker that he would not be able to wait for his hearing in the court’s safe room because it was designated to women and their children.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In September 2020, the man – who will not be named – attended the Local Court to seek an apprehended domestic violence order against his former partner after she pleaded guilty to common assault against him. He attended the court with a support person and spoke to a police domestic violence liaison officer beforehand.
The man alleged that the conduct of the specialist worker in denying him entry and suggesting he wait in the men’s bathroom was “not done in good faith” because she was “dismissive” of him. While the specialist worker denied it happening, the man also alleged that she called him a “defendant” and had raised her voice.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) heard that the man experienced a feeling of distress, severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
“He feels very aggrieved at the encounter with [the specialist worker] which he considers to be a degrading dressing down for being a male seeking safety. He submits that males that need safety in court are being denied the assistance which could be fatal or at least detrimental to the mental health of that male,” NCAT heard.
The specialist worker informed NCAT that she did not permit the man to enter the room because the service she provides was limited to women who are victims of domestic violence and their children. The tribunal also heard that the court regularly restricts access to the safe room to a particular group of people on some days.
On this particular day, the safe room was restricted to women and their children involved in domestic or family violence matters listed for that day. The man alleged that this was not told to him by the police domestic violence liaison officer and that there was no signage around the room to indicate that it was female-only.
The man added that he offered to enter the room on the promise that he would leave it the moment that a woman wanted to use it, but this was also dismissed.
“It may well have been that [the specialist worker] was insensitive and dismissive or [the man’s] concerns and that is regrettable, but these matters do not mean that she was not carrying out her role in providing the room in good faith,” NCAT found.
“It is also evident that [the man] was very aggrieved to be denied entry into the safety room because he was previously told by court staff that he could enter and he had a reasonable expectation that he could do so. However, there is no suggestion [the specialist worker] had any role to play in regard to the incorrect advice.”
