The findings handed down by coroner Ian Gray on Monday in relation to the death of Luke Batty were the most comprehensive ever to be handed down in a family violence case in Victoria.
Spanning 111 pages, his report into Luke’s death in February last year made 29 recommendations for the Victorian government and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria police, the magistrates court and the family law council.
Luke was killed after being hit with a cricket bat and stabbed on a field in Tyabb, Victoria, by his father, Greg Anderson, who was “solely” responsible for his death, Gray found.
But his recommendations also address ways the agencies within the family violence system could have worked better together to protect Luke and his mother, Rosie Batty.
His forensic examination of these agencies should provide lessons for all governments committed to addressing family violence. Inquests cost governments hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Australian state, territory and federal governments could save money – and more importantly, lives – by considering how Gray’s recommendations for Victoria might be applied more widely.
Risk of harm increases when victims have to navigate the family violence system alone
For the first time in a family violence-related inquest nationally, a recommendation was made that a state family violence advocacy service be created to provide services and advice for women and families trying to escape abuse.
Gray was acting on evidence from an evaluation of four independent domestic violence advocacy schemes in London, which found 57% of women supported by an advocate experienced a near cessation of abuse from their perpetrator after four months.
Through the scheme, independent advocates worked with victims in hospitals, police stations and crisis centres to assess their risk of further harm, and to develop a safety plan. They also helped women access any entitlements available to them from agencies, such as legal aid.
When someone is escaping family violence, they may have no idea how to get an intervention order, where to get safe housing, or if any financial or emotional support service are available. It may also be difficult to make clear decisions at such an emotional and dangerous time, particularly if children are involved who may have been uprooted from home and school.
An independent advocate helps women access all this information, and provides clarity at a highly unstable time. Crucially they also ensure information about a victim’s situation and any changes to it is shared between agencies, so that if a perpetrator breaches an intervention order or continues to make threats, everyone involved, from the department of child protection to the police, are made aware.
If the goal of an effective family violence system is to stop perpetrators from being violent, then the evidence suggests independent advocates are a worthwhile funding investment for governments. It is difficult for a perpetrator to keep harming a victim when an advocate is working hard to make sure all agencies are aware of, and are responding to, their behaviour.
Family violence victims are rarely represented by anyone when they attend court. The court system must do more help them
Women who go to a court to take out an intervention order to prevent a perpetrator from contacting them often do so because they are in immediate fear for their safety or their life. But getting any kind of legal representation or assistance at a court is often like playing a game of Russian roulette. Many victims cannot afford their own lawyer, or do not have time to get one.
A victim applying for an intervention order may be lucky enough to see a duty lawyer for a few minutes, if that lawyer has time. Sometimes a community centre lawyer might be on hand, but this lawyer might see dozens of women in one day.
There is often no time to go over the full history of a victim’s situation or to carry out a thorough risk assessment.
Although an application for an intervention order can be made by police, many women wrongly believe this means that the police prosecutor also represents them.
This is not true, and the police prosecutor may not have all the information about the victim’s situation given the main agency they are receiving information from is the police.
All court staff working with family violence victims should have specialised family violence training, Gray recommended, adding that court registrars and support workers should carry out a risk assessment on every person applying for an intervention order.
This risk assessment information should then be provided to the police prosecutor, and training in conducting this risk assessment should be comprehensive.
These measures, combined with the introduction of independent advocates, would go a long way to protecting women from being overwhelmed and, at worst, neglected by state and federal court systems.
It’s time for systems to work together to hold perpetrators to account
Rosie Batty said Gray’s emphasis on perpetrator accountability was one of the most significant aspects of his report.
In her evidence last year, Batty described how the ownership was always placed on her, as the protective parent: to get counselling to cope with the abuse she was suffering; to monitor Anderson’s behaviour and update the multiple agencies working with her about any changes; to make decisions to keep Luke safe.
All the while, Anderson manipulated the court system, the inquest heard, not showing up to intervention order hearings and forcing lengthy delays in proceedings. Batty’s experiences in the court system were navigated by Anderson, and when he decided to show up to court.
Her experiences are echoed by those who have left abusive relationships across the country.
Gray said bail should be refused to perpetrators who refuse to show up to their court dates. Courts should be given the power to mandate perpetrators undergo psychiatric assessments, especially in cases involving children at risk of harm.
Meanwhile, the Privacy Act was unclear, which meant agencies scared of breaching it often did not share significant information about the perpetrator with each other or the victim, Gray found. It meant Batty was trying to make decisions to keep Luke safe without the knowledge that Anderson was facing charges relating to child abuse material. The act should be made clearer, Gray said, and a perpetrator’s right to privacy should not trump the safety of children.
Enforcing these recommendations across the country would make it difficult for perpetrators to use the courts as a mechanism for abusing and controlling their victims.
Family violence is a specialised area. Staff need training
Gray emphasised the need for consistency in the way courts, child protection agencies and police assess whether women and children are at further risk of harm from a perpetrator. A standardised risk assessment tool must be developed and staff trained how to use it.
Batty said on Monday that some of the most difficult moments during the inquest came when she heard evidence from frontline workers, including police, that made it clear they had “no idea” how to identify risk factors for family violence.
“There has to be increased training for people coming into contact with victims and perpetrators,” she said.
“It is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous that this specialisation is somehow not recognised.”
Of the multiple police officers, counsellors, child protection officers, lawyers, judges and prosecutors that came into the lives of Luke and Rosie Batty, magistrate Anne Goldsbrough, who had extensive experience with family violence cases, was the only one to recognise that Luke was at serious risk of death at the hands Anderson, the inquest heard.
When Goldsbrough heard Anderson had held up a knife to Luke while they were in a car together, she told Batty she was “alarmed” and that it was a “red flag” that predicted future risk. She implemented an intervention order.
Gray recognised family violence work as a specialised area, and recommended accordingly. The recognition of risk to children should not require that staff go above and beyond. Anyone with solid training and who works with victims should be able to independently assess this risk.
And creating a strong and consistent system for training staff, and identifying women and children at risk of harm and death, should not be limited to Victoria.
Government agencies must have a way of holding themselves to account
New South Wales and Victoria are the only states where the agencies targeted by a coronial inquest have to respond to the recommendations made to them. Even then, there is nothing to mandate that governments and agencies have to adopt the recommendations made.
While there is no consistent review of how many coroners’ recommendations are acted upon, the annual report from the NSW domestic violence death review found only half of all recommendations relating to inquests into family violence cases were acted upon.
For reform around family violence to occur, governments must commit to adopting recommendations from coronial inquests wherever practically possible. And departments and agencies that implement those changes must take responsibility for reviewing how well those changes are working. A strong system responding to family violence system is also an accountable one.
