Mitchell and Mitchell (No 2)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mitchell against orders made by Judge Hartnett on 7 September 2016, which included an injunction restraining Mr Mitchell from approaching within 250 metres of Ms Mitchell and three children, X, Y, and Z. The appeal also concerned an application by Ms Mitchell for an injunction. The proceedings were heard by Gill J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before Gill J was whether the injunction granted by Judge Hartnett, which imposed significant restrictions on Mr Mitchell's movements, was appropriate and should be continued. This involved considering the evidence presented by Ms Mitchell regarding Mr Mitchell's alleged conduct and the potential risk to her and the children, and balancing this against Mr Mitchell's rights.

Gill J considered the evidence of Mr Mitchell's behaviour, including allegations of stalking and harassment directed at Ms Mitchell and the children. The court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, particularly in the context of family violence, which require a consideration of whether there is a serious question to be tried and whether damages would be an inadequate remedy. The court found that the evidence supported the need for protective measures and that the injunction was a necessary and proportionate response to the demonstrated risk.

Consequently, Gill J ordered that Order 1 of the 7 September 2016 orders be suspended, and further ordered that Mr Mitchell be restrained by injunction from approaching within 250 metres of Ms Mitchell, X, Y, and Z. Additional injunctions were granted restraining Mr Mitchell from approaching or attending B Street, C Town, Victoria, and from attending the M School, D Street, C Town, Victoria.