Groom v Police

The appellant Groom brought an appeal against the decision of a Magistrates Court in South Australia which confirmed an intervention order made against him. The order was made under the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) and was based on an earlier domestic violence restraining order made under the Domestic Violence Act 1994 (SA) which had been repealed. The appellant contended that the order should be revoked and discharged on the basis of what he described as "special disadvantage." The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the appellant had given informed consent to his lawyer to accept the offer of the police to withdraw the charges in consideration of confirming the intervention order, and whether the Magistrate had erred in confirming the intervention order without receiving any further evidence or submissions as to the grounds on which the interim order was made. The court needed to determine whether the appellant's consent was informed and whether the Magistrate had followed the correct legal process in confirming the intervention order.

The court found that the appellant had given informed consent to his lawyer to act on his behalf to negotiate a resolution of all matters before the Court on 10 December 2013. The court was satisfied that the appellant was well aware of what occurred in court on 10 December 2013, was present throughout the discussions and gave informed consent to his lawyer to accept the offer of the police to withdraw the 31 charges listed for trial that date in consideration of the appellant agreeing to confirmation of the intervention order. The court also found that the Magistrate was entitled to confirm the intervention order on 10 December 2013 without receiving any further evidence or submissions as to the grounds on which the interim order was made, as the Act permits that course to be taken where the subject of the intervention order gives informed consent.

The appeal was dismissed and the order made on 10 December 2013 was upheld. The court noted that the appellant's ongoing sense of grievance and not any denial of his procedural rights on 10 December 2013 was the real basis of the appeal. The court found that the appellant did not identify any error in the process undertaken by the Magistrate on 10 December 2013 and that the decision of the Magistrate was properly made.