Normal view MARC view ISBD view

The Domestic Violence Act ten years on Boshier, Peter

By: Boshier, Peter.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticlePublisher: Wellington Lexis Nexis 2006ISSN: 1746-8000.Subject(s): CONSULTATION HUI | DEMOGRAPHICS | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 1995 | FAMILY COURT | JUSTICE | LEGISLATION | STATISTICS | WOMEN | NEW ZEALAND | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE | LAW In: New Zealand Family Law Journal 5(6) June 2006 : 133-139Summary: This article examines the Family Court's response to domestic violence. The author posits that protection orders are not having the effect of decreasing levels of domestic violence. Topics covered in the article include: without notice applications and the burden of proof, cost factors associated with a protection order, the effect of violence on children and their care arrangements, defining violence, prosecution for breaches of protection orders, and delays in the Family Court. The author also discusses some of the criticisms aimed at the Court's treatment of domestic violence, particularly those made in a report by the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges (Hann, 2004).
No physical items for this record

This article is adapted from a speech given by Judge Boshier at the Domestic Violence Hui, Te Unga Waka, Auckland on 27 March 2006.

This article examines the Family Court's response to domestic violence. The author posits that protection orders are not having the effect of decreasing levels of domestic violence. Topics covered in the article include: without notice applications and the burden of proof, cost factors associated with a protection order, the effect of violence on children and their care arrangements, defining violence, prosecution for breaches of protection orders, and delays in the Family Court. The author also discusses some of the criticisms aimed at the Court's treatment of domestic violence, particularly those made in a report by the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges (Hann, 2004).

New Zealand Family Law Journal 5(6) June 2006 : 133-139