EES v SDH

[2025] QMC 15

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

EES v SDH [2025] QMC 15

PARTIES:

EES

(Aggrieved)

v

SDH

(Respondent)

And

Commissioner of Police

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00025851/24(2)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Domestic Violence – Authorisation to Publish Information

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

11 April 2025

MAGISTRATE:

Judge J M Brassington, Chief Magistrate

ORDER:

ORDER AS PER PARAGRAPH 75

CATCHWORDS:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – Section 159(2)(a)

COUNSEL:

M. Nicholson for the Commissioner of Police

SOLICITORS:

C. Gnech, Gnech and Associates for Respondent

Queensland Police Service for Applicant

1. On 13 February 2024 an application for a protection order (by way of a police protection notice) was heard in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. The aggrieved was EES.[1] The respondent was SDH.[2] SDH was a police officer.  On that day a temporary protection order was made.  

   [1]A pseudonym

   [2]A pseudonym

1. The application was contested. Directions for filing additional material by the parties were made and the application was heard by Magistrate Kelly on the 15^th August and 23rd October 2024. On 5 November 2024 her Honour dismissed the application for a protection order. A copy of her reasons has been transcribed.

1. Relevantly, for this matter her Honour considered the evidence and noted that:

SDH disputes two of three elements of section 37.[3] He maintains that they were not in a couple relationship. He conceded there were acts of domestic violence but that an order was not necessary or desirable.[4]

[3]Section 37 of the DV Act provides that a Court may make a protection order if satisfied that (1) a relevant relationship exists between the aggrieved and respondent (2) the respondent committed domestic violence against the aggrieved and (3) the protection order is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence.

[4]Decision p. 4 lines 33 - 34

1. As to the concession made by SDH her Honour found:

..so the second issue, under s. 37, is – were there acts of domestic violence, and it is conceded by SDH that his conduct in the recordings, marked exhibit 4, do amount to acts of domestic violence. I would certainly have found that if the concession had not been made. There is clearly verbal and psychological abuse and threats and threatening behaviour contained within those recordings. I will not further consider the second limb of section 37.[5]

[5]Decision p. 13 lines 23 - 29

1. She sets out some of the contents of exhibit 4 in her decision:

The recording in exhibit 4 contain exhortations by SDH to EES to respond to his Snapchat messages, and done so in a demanding, entitled, and intimidating way. There are references to retribution for EES not responding to SHD’s Snapchat message. There are accusations that she is playing games with him..[6]

[6]Decision p. 11 lines 10 – lines 43 - 48

1. While her Honour found there was a relevant relationship between SDH and EES she concluded that a protection order was not necessary or desirable to…