Law is protecting the wrong people

When his marriage broke down, he was violent to his wife.

We would like to tell you who he is. We'd have liked the school group he performed for to know that he's an angry man who so terrified his wife that an intervention order was issued against him by the courts.

We'd like to be sure that the new girlfriend he took up with after his marriage ended knows about his history. And what does the Government, which gives money to the organisation he's heavily involved in, think of his behaviour?

We'd like to name him, when we tell you that he was charged three times with breaching a family violence intervention order. One charge was withdrawn. He pleaded guilty to the other two. No convictions were recorded because he agreed to be of good behaviour for a year. And he's twice been ordered to pay $750 to a women's support group.

But we can't. The law won't let us.

Then there's another man. Tall, good-looking, wealthy. Peak of his career. He seemed to have it all. But he refused to leave his frightened ex-girlfriend alone when the relationship was over, so the courts issued an intervention order to protect her from him. He breached it so many times, he ended up in jail.

We can't tell you who he is, either.

In other states, media outlets would be able to name these men. In Victoria, we cannot even tell you what their occupations are.

This secrecy has arisen as an apparently unintended consequence of a very good piece of legislation called the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.

The Act is far-reaching and provides significant protection for victims of family violence. Sections 166-169 of the Act ensure the victim's identity is protected - including by suppressing the name and any identifying features of the attacker.

Victims of family violence are very vulnerable and should be given maximum protection under the law. But however well-intentioned this section of the Act was, it has allowed perpetrators - almost always men - anonymity.

This even extends to when they commit a crime by breaching their intervention orders.

Victims are further disempowered by the law forbidding the media reporting that their partners have breached intervention order against them, even when that is what the victim wants.

Attorney-General Robert Clark has promised to review the law and it seems likely there will be change. It would make sense for those who breach intervention orders to face being publicly named, the same as any other criminal.

Mr Clark moved immediately to review the law after he was told by the Herald Sun of the case of Carla Gagliardi. Ms Gagliardi was beaten almost to death by her ex-fiance Hugh Marshall three days after an intervention order was issued against him. The Herald Sun had to go to court on Ms Gagliardi's behalf in order to allow her to tell her story.

Work is now underway to determine how to amend the legislation to give victims privacy when they need it - but ensure that perpetrators are not benefiting from the secrecy provisions.

One of the ways might be as simple as removing the right of perpetrators to object to their names being revealed.

Marshall, now serving a 10-year jail term for attacking Ms Gagliardi, objected to her wanting to reveal he had breached an intervention order when he attacked her. The Herald Sun paid for a court hearing to allow Ms Gagliardi's story to be told, but the delays meant several weeks of stress and anxiety for Ms Gagliardi, who couldn't understand why the law stopped her explaining what happened.

Many thousands of dollars were spent on legal expenses. While that's not an insurmountable hurdle for the Herald Sun, it may well be a significant problem for everyday victims who do not have the backing of a media organisation or the financial resources to launch such a bid themselves.

Will Legal Aid help them? The same Legal Aid that helped Marshall in his bid to gag Ms Gagliardi and used taxpayer funds to unsuccessfully seek a two-month delay before abruptly withdrawing from the fight?

Intervention orders are one of the most powerful tools victims have for keeping themselves and their children safe. But they work only when breaches are enforced. There is no such thing as a "technical breach'', as police who works in this field will tell you.

How is the community able to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of these intervention orders if we cannot fully discuss the circumstances surrounding them? And how can we continue to highlight the fact that family violence occurs across all levels of society, all social-economic communities and cultures, when the law helps violent men escape scrutiny?

Chief Commissioner Ken Lay, on the day the Herald Sun launched its Take a Stand campaign against family violence, made a controversial, yet illuminating comment.

"I know some very high-profile, some very well respected people, that bash their wives.''

He has never said who he was referring to.

Would we still respect them if we knew who they were? The answer ought to be no.

Ellen Whinnett is Herald Sun associate editor

To view the article on the Herald Sun website click here