Major Queensland Domestic Violence Act amendments
On the 30th of April 2025, the Queensland Minister for Domestic and Family Violence introduced significant changes to Queensland’s current domestic violence laws.
The most notable change is the introduction of a Police Protection Direction (PPD). This direction is, in effect, an order made by police ‘on-the-spot’ to alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. Further introductions include:
- QPS monitoring devices will be issued to high-risk perpetrators.
- The video recorded evidence in-chief (VREC) scheme, which has been under trial, will be expanded statewide
Police Protection Direction (PPD)
Up until now, all police application for a protection order are put before a Court requiring an independent judicial officer to consider the merits of any application. Now, police will be able to issue a PPD when a Police officer considers that it is appropriate for a matter not to proceed to Court. This represents a fundamental shift in the administration of justice plus the rights and interests of all parties.
The Minister in her Introduction Speech asserted that there will be safeguards for the issuing of PPDs to reduce the risk of misidentification of the person most in need of protection. The Minister’s speech indicates there are circumstances where a formal application to a Court for a Domestic Violence Order will continue to be the most appropriate form of protection.
A PPD will not be available in any of the following circumstances:
-
- a) Where the respondent or aggrieved is a child
- b) Where the respondent or aggrieved is a police officer
- c) Where the respondent should be taken into custody in relation to the relevant domestic violence
-
- d) Where a DVO will recognise interstate orders relating to the parties as enforced or has previously been enforced. This is to ensure the parties who have a history of orders between them proceed to a Court to have their relationship as a whole considered.
-
- e) Where a PPD against the respondent is in force or has previously been in force. A PPD will also not be able to be issued if there is already a PPD in place between the same aggrieved and respondent
-
- f) Where the respondent has been convicted of a domestic violence offence in the previous two years.
-
- g) Where the respondent has allegedly used or threatened to use an offensive weapon or instrument to commit the domestic violence
-
- h) Where an application for a protection order, including via a PPN, against the respondent has been made
-
- i) Where a child is a named person on the PPD, and conditions other then standard conditions are needed to provide protection
When issuing a PPD, police officers will be required to seek approval from a supervising police officer. For a PPD which includes a cool-down condition, the supervising officer must be of at least the rank of Seargeant. PPDs that include an ouster or no contact condition must be approved by a supervising officer of at least the rank of Senior Seargeant.
If a supervising officer considers the matter should go before the Court, they can approve the issue of a Police Protection Notice instead of a PPD.
The Bill establishes two pathways for a PPD to be reviewed once it is issued – a police review and a Court review.
A police officer review may be suitable on a police officer’s initiative if the police officer becomes aware of circumstances, or reasonably believes there are circumstances, that were not known or considered when the PPD was issued.
The aggrieved, the respondent, and authorised persons for the aggrieved and the named person may also apply for a police review of a PPD within 28 days after the notice. This is a useful safeguard.
The aggrieved or respondent can also, at any time during the 12 months the PPD is in force, make an application to a Court to review the PPD. Importantly, an Applicant can seek a Court review whether or not they have applied for a police review. The Court review is not an appeal against the police review.
On such an application, the Court will be required to consider whether a protection order is necessary or desirable at the time of review, not at the time the PPD was issued. The Court may make any order that is currently available in relation to hearing an application for a Domestic Violence Order. The Court might also make an Order setting aside the PPD or decide to dismiss the application for a protection notice.
QPS electronic monitoring devices
Under the Bill, there are also changes to the framework for electronic monitoring of high-risk domestic and family violence perpetrators. When making a monitoring device condition, Courts will be required to consider making an ouster condition or a condition that prohibits the respondent from approaching, or attempting to approach, the aggrieved or named person.
Video recorded evidence-in-chief
According to the Minister, the Bill simplifies, streamlines and expands the framework currently in the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) which allows adult complainants in domestic violence criminal proceedings to give their evidence-in-chief by way of a video recorded statement. Currently, the framework only applies in the Ipswich, Southport and Coolangatta Magistrates Court. The Bill expands the framework to all Magistrates court statewide to enable all “victim-survivors” of domestic and family violence the option of providing a recorded statement and have that recording presented to the Court as their evidence in chief instead of oral testimony.
The Minister noted that “victim-survivors” of domestic and family violence may delay in reporting any offending to police. If a matter is immediately reported, “victim-survivors” may be in a heightened state of distress and require further time before providing a detailed account police. The Bill removes the requirement to obtain a recorded statement as soon as practicable after the events to which the recorded statement relates. The Minister said this will allow a victim-centric approach to when a police officer may take a recorded statement.
The Bill also removes the requirement for a police officer who has successfully completed certain training to take a recorded statement. This will provide, according to the Minister, more “victim-survivors” across the state the option of making a recorded statement with a police officer who has completed other suitable training.
Conclusion
These changes represent significant shifts in the way in which police investigate domestic violence, collect evidence and protect those in need of protection.
The Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, in ‘Hear her voice – Report 2 – Women and girls experience across the criminal justice system’, detailed how the person most in need of protection is often misidentified.1 Similarly, the Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence, explicitly noted that the misidentification of victims as perpetrators “compromises the integrity of the police response and significantly heightens the risk to the primary victim”.2
Courts play an important role to independently assess each case once the dust has settled in a domestic violence situation. While the mechanism to review a PPD before a Court is encouraging, many individuals will face practical barriers, such as financial ones, to exercise this right.