A Queensland court has thrown out the police case against a woman who was charged with driving offences while fleeing domestic violence with her dog.
The Gympie magistrates court accepted the unchallenged evidence of the woman – referred to as ESC – that she drove while disqualified after her violent partner threatened to kill her dog.
She successfully defended the charge on the grounds that the situation constituted an “extraordinary emergency”.
The court heard that since the woman was charged with driving while disqualified, a domestic violence protection order has been issued against her former partner, naming her as the “aggrieved” person.
Magistrate Bevan Hughes found that the man’s threat to kill the dog was “a well-recognised act of coercive control” and “the latest incident in an ongoing pattern of domestic violence … including being physically violent … locking her out of the house, breaking things, damaging her property, falsely accusing her of what he believed to be inappropriate behaviour, and trying to make her feel bad about furthering herself”.
Police prosecuting the case argued that ESC’s demeanour was “not consistent with escaping danger” and that she could have used her phone to call for help, driven to the closest police station “or a nearby fertiliser factory”, or alerted the intercepting police when she was pulled over.
Hughes said that “consistent with holistic principles for assessing domestic violence” he did not consider her emotional state as determinative of her situation.
“[ESC] is not expected to be wiser or better than an ordinary person in the same circumstances. She must act quickly and do the best she can. A person is not to be condemned simply on the basis that in the agony of the moment and without the opportunity to weigh up and deliberate upon what action to take, she made a wrong choice.”
The court also heard that ESC had previously attempted to report domestic violence to police, and that she believed she was not taken seriously.
Hughes said that belief was “honest and reasonable” given her unrefuted evidence that, on an earlier occasion, it had taken police more than six hours to attend after making a complaint about her former partner.
“Like many institutions who serve the public, the quality of the police response will often depend on the skill, training and insight of the investigating officer,” Hughes found.
“Police resources are limited and delay in response time can have many reasons. But that does not detract from the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief because the consequence for her is the same – her concern not being readily addressed by police.
“It is well recognised – albeit belatedly – that victims may not immediately report domestic violence, whether it be due to concerns about retribution from the perpetrator or concerns about obtuse responses from authorities.
“This then makes it reasonable for her to consider other options to remove herself from imminent danger to a place of safety.”
Hughes also found that it was unreasonable to suggest the woman should have driven herself to the fertiliser factory, where she did not know anyone.
“The defendant was an isolated and vulnerable woman seeking refuge from an imminent threat of domestic violence,” he said.
“She removed herself from that extraordinary emergency by removing herself and her valued companion from the source of that threat by driving to the nearest place of refuge. It is reasonable to expect an ordinary person in that situation to have acted in that way.”
In Australia, the national family violence counselling service is on 1800 737 732. In the UK, call the national domestic abuse helpline on 0808 2000 247, or visit Women’s Aid. In the US, the domestic violence hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). Other international helplines may be found via www.befrienders.org
