O, GL v Police

Mr O appealed against the decision of Magistrate Davis to refuse to revoke an intervention order made against him. The protected person was Mr O’s wife, with whom he had been married for 22 years before separating in October 2012. An interim intervention order was made against Mr O by police on 26 October 2012, and confirmed by the Court on 12 November 2012. Mr O sought to have the intervention order revoked, claiming that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the order was confirmed. The legal issues in this case included whether the Magistrate erred in having regard to two affidavits that were not tendered, and whether, on the hearing of the application for revocation, the court had access to the circumstances and evidence underlying the confirmation of the interim intervention order.

The court considered that the Magistrate had not erred in having regard to the affidavits, as they were available to him for consideration. The court also found that the Magistrate was entitled to have regard to the affidavits because they were relevant to the protected person’s safety and the circumstances of the case. The court further held that the Magistrate was not required to tender the affidavits into evidence, as they were already before the Court and could be considered by the Magistrate. The court also found that the Magistrate had access to the circumstances and evidence underlying the confirmation of the interim intervention order, as the Court had the power to make its own order in the absence of the original affidavits. The court concluded that the Magistrate had not made a substantial error of law, and dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and that the intervention order remain in force. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by Mr O to the protected person. The court noted that the protected person had suffered significant trauma and distress as a result of Mr O’s conduct, and that the intervention order was necessary to protect her from further harm. The court further held that the intervention order was in the best interests of the protected person, and that it was appropriate for the order to remain in force until further order.