New UK Bullying Law

[Orleander]

Exactly how much government needs to be in a relationship? A nagging wife or a rude husband can now be charged and jailed?

UK seeks to crack down on 'bullying' husbands

LONDON -- Men who treat their wives in a controlling way but do not assault them physically could face criminal charges under sweeping new domestic violence laws being proposed in the United Kingdom.
Under the changes drawn up by Liberal Democrat ministers, husbands accused of “bullying” or psychologically abusing their wives could be prosecuted for domestic violence, the Daily Mail reports.
The guidelines could cover anyone exercising "coercive control" over their partner, so would also apply to women who bully their male partners.
Separately, ministers are expected to unveil recommendations that would make forcing children into arranged marriages a crime.

 

[Asguard]

Exactly how much government needs to be in a relationship? A nagging wife or a rude husband can now be charged and jailed?

UK seeks to crack down on 'bullying' husbands

LONDON -- Men who treat their wives in a controlling way but do not assault them physically could face criminal charges under sweeping new domestic violence laws being proposed in the United Kingdom.
Under the changes drawn up by Liberal Democrat ministers, husbands accused of “bullying” or psychologically abusing their wives could be prosecuted for domestic violence, the Daily Mail reports.
The guidelines could cover anyone exercising "coercive control" over their partner, so would also apply to women who bully their male partners.
Separately, ministers are expected to unveil recommendations that would make forcing children into arranged marriages a crime.

I was coming here to congratulate the Brits for finally taking school bullying seriously but this? How the hell are you even going to prove this? what's included? A friend of mine's misses told him she wouldn't have sex with him while he had a mow. Technically that could be considered to be controlling because its dictating to one partner what they do with there own body so is that illegal???? Where do you draw the line on something like this? I know the UK has some weird domestic violence laws period (i.e. the laws against consensual S&M) but this takes the cake

 

[chimpkin]

In other news...S&M is illegal in Britain?
No guns, no S&M, no speeding?

Not very merry, are they?

 

[Read-Only]

This is a fine example of good intentions turning nutty!!

I can see it now - a husband and wife get into a serious argument over something fairly simple. And one (or both!) decide to take it out on the other and file charges of bullying.

Just HOW stupid can a bunch of lawmakers get?!?!?!?

 

[convivial]

I would actually be okay with law to this effect if only well-supported evidence is used (recorded conversations, video). Or, I'd at least entertain the idea, as a lawmaker.

 

[Bells]

Exactly how much government needs to be in a relationship? A nagging wife or a rude husband can now be charged and jailed?

UK seeks to crack down on 'bullying' husbands

LONDON -- Men who treat their wives in a controlling way but do not assault them physically could face criminal charges under sweeping new domestic violence laws being proposed in the United Kingdom.
Under the changes drawn up by Liberal Democrat ministers, husbands accused of “bullying” or psychologically abusing their wives could be prosecuted for domestic violence, the Daily Mail reports.
The guidelines could cover anyone exercising "coercive control" over their partner, so would also apply to women who bully their male partners.
Separately, ministers are expected to unveil recommendations that would make forcing children into arranged marriages a crime.

Firstly, your link is not to the article.. at all. Could you please link it again?

Secondly, from the little bit you posted, it seems the law's purpose is to combat psychological and emotional abuse, which, believe it or not, is deemed a form of domestic abuse.

 

[Asguard]

Firstly, your link is not to the article.. at all. Could you please link it again?

Secondly, from the little bit you posted, it seems the law's purpose is to combat psychological and emotional abuse, which, believe it or not, is deemed a form of domestic abuse.

Yea bells except 2 points, 1) based on what was posted in my experience its WOMEN who are more guilty of acting this way than men are and yet it specifically states MEN and 2) Domestic violence is hard enough to prove to start with and this is hard enough to prove in elder abuse cases so how exactly is it possible to prove (or even DEFINE) this in an "equal" relationship

Oh and I'm suspicious of these sorts of laws in the UK because of the aforementioned laws against S&M, if your seriously going to throw people in jail for consenting to something that they WANT to do, which involves no one else and which doesn't even have the excuses that laws against incest has then how exactly can people trust that THIS law wont be abused?

 

[michael_taylor]

Having some experience with charitable refuges for battered women, and having heard first hand from victims that the psychological abuse is often worse than just having their face smashed in again, I'd have to say I don't have a particular problem with making a law against it.

Of course it's just as open to abuse as all laws, but that's a broader issue. If you're going to have laws against behaviors that damage other people at all, the only issue is one of degree.

If the law really was aimed at rudeness or nagging like the OP suggested, it wouldn't be a useful law, but that's quite frankly rubbish. (For a moment I thought the News of the World had re-opened and invaded the message board.)

It isn't about a lack of politeness. It's about psychologically torturing someone, grinding down their self esteem, isolating them from their friends and family, threatening to kill their children if they leave, taking advantage of their culture or religion to make them into a slave, or generally making the one place they should feel safe a continual barrage of acute anxiety and chronic stress until you drive them to the point of madness or suicide.

Anyone who thinks it isn't desirable to censure that sort of behavior is, in my opinion, a cunt.

 

[Bells]

Yea bells except 2 points, 1) based on what was posted in my experience its WOMEN who are more guilty of acting this way than men

And you have proof and links to studies to prove this?

and yet it specifically states MEN and

Do you think it is the law specifically that states this or the article?

Pay particular attention to this:

The guidelines could cover anyone exercising "coercive control" over their partner, so would also apply to women who bully their male partners.​

2) Domestic violence is hard enough to prove to start with and this is hard enough to prove in elder abuse cases so how exactly is it possible to prove (or even DEFINE) this in an "equal" relationship

This, I would imagine, would fall under the 'domestic violence' category, since it is domestic violence. In other words, in a relationship where one partner is denied any rights to things like bank accounts for example, or denied the right to work or leave the home and where one partner is threatened, blackmailed or pressured into complying with the wishes of the other, that is classic domestic abuse. I would say if this legislation passes, it would apply to domestic abuse cases most of all.

Or are you going to claim that because it is hard to prove, one should simply not bother?

Oh and I'm suspicious of these sorts of laws in the UK because of the aforementioned laws against S&M, if your seriously going to throw people in jail for consenting to something that they WANT to do, which involves no one else and which doesn't even have the excuses that laws against incest has then how exactly can people trust that THIS law wont be abused?

I highlighted the important word that you seem to overlook and not recognise in your argument. Think about it....

 

[Asguard]

umm bells, seriously you need to look at the UK laws. CONSENSUAL S&M is illegal in the UK, they actually have laws banning it. You can jump up and down all you want but its true. Therefore when they ALREADY have laws which ban actual consensual behaviour how can you trust how they will USE these new laws?

Its no different the fact that considering how Australia already uses censorship laws with regard to video games I'm highly suspicious about how they will use a compulsory Internet filter. Ie when you are already using the law to over control the free will of people its very hard to trust a new law no matter how well intentioned.

So back to this, your example is great, and there are lots of situations i would love to see it applied. However where do you draw a line making something criminal behavor? Most of the time this SHOULD be an easy question, where does something become assault, well where you hit someone of course except in consensual situations such as S&M (if your not English) or in sporting events where that is the goal. So where does this law draw the line? where is the common law etc backing it up? Is you telling your husband that even though he wants to go to the pub after work with his mates, if he doesn't come straight home you will never give him sex again, is that "just being controlling and a bitch" or is that criminal now? What about Harrison Ford telling his wife that if she doesn't start eating he will dump her because he doesn't want to watch her stave to death? This is the problem with these laws in reality rather than in theory.

 

[Bells]

umm bells, seriously you need to look at the UK laws. CONSENSUAL S&M is illegal in the UK, they actually have laws banning it. You can jump up and down all you want but its true. Therefore when they ALREADY have laws which ban actual consensual behaviour how can you trust how they will USE these new laws?

Considering how little they have used the BDSM laws, which apply to only specific instances, this law being discussed in this thread, however, has nothing to do with the BDSM laws.

This specific law targets what Michael_Taylor and myself have described to you.

Its no different the fact that considering how Australia already uses censorship laws with regard to video games I'm highly suspicious about how they will use a compulsory Internet filter. Ie when you are already using the law to over control the free will of people its very hard to trust a new law no matter how well intentioned.

So you would prefer that forms of domestic violence be legal because you do not trust new laws?

So back to this, your example is great, and there are lots of situations i would love to see it applied. However where do you draw a line making something criminal behavor? Most of the time this SHOULD be an easy question, where does something become assault, well where you hit someone of course except in consensual situations such as S&M (if your not English) or in sporting events where that is the goal. So where does this law draw the line? where is the common law etc backing it up? Is you telling your husband that even though he wants to go to the pub after work with his mates, if he doesn't come straight home you will never give him sex again, is that "just being controlling and a bitch" or is that criminal now? What about Harrison Ford telling his wife that if she doesn't start eating he will dump her because he doesn't want to watch her stave to death? This is the problem with these laws in reality rather than in theory.

How about telling your spouse or partner that if they leave you will kill yourself or the children? How about telling your spouse or partner that if they do something, then when they come home, you will have taken the children away...

You seem to be jumping all over the place.

It is about controlling the life of your spouse and not giving them any choice(s).

It is about emotional and psychological abuse.

If you cannot understand those concepts and if you do not understand how emotional and psychological abuse constitutes domestic violence, then naturally, you will find this legislation difficult to understand.

 

[Asguard]

Bells i find it fascinating that you (a LAWYER) haven't even posted any of the law itself, its interpenetration or anything else which would actually show my comments as being WRONG. Its ok, i can read legalise, i even wrote quite a good review of the bill to bring in voluntary Euthanasia in SA and pointed out to its drafter where he fucked up. In fact your comments are even LESS substantial than the original newspaper article.

Once again how do you define "emotional and psychological abuse" and how do you PROVE it? Not show it as part of a pattern involving physical and or sexual abuse because if that was the case there would be no need for any new laws because there are already laws covering sexual assault, common assault, rape and domestic violence.

Oh and as for your comment about taking the children away, I'm pretty sure that the family court ALREADY deals with cases like this and there are already laws about taking the children out of the country without consent etc so that's obviously not what this law is about. Further more on the first statement "t if they leave you will kill yourself or the children", the first comment will get you SECTIONED (and yes i have a fair amount of experience with this one surprisingly enough), not charged and the second will get you arrested for child endangerment so continue.

 

[michael_taylor]

Your fanciful self aggrandizement and comical misspellings aside, I think there are serious flaws in your position.

how do you define "emotional and psychological abuse" and how do you PROVE it?

You define it as the behavior of one person seriously harming another. You ask both sides for their story, you find witnesses, you collect evidence, arrange for a jury of peers and so on. It's really no different than other violent crimes. There are plenty of convictions for crimes which cause harm without physical violence. Malicious slanders, blackmail, demanding money with menaces, child molestation, the various types harassment and so on. They all have a psychological basis. They are all illegal. They are all frequently successfully prosecuted.

The issue isn't one of practicality, as the merest moment of genuine thought would have shown you, the issue is whether preying on the vulnerable for your own sick pleasure by inducing traumatic stress is right or wrong.

It is unequivocally wrong. It doesn't matter how you spin it. It doesn't matter whether it's difficult to summarize in a simplified soundbite. It doesn't matter whether it's traditional in your culture. It doesn't matter if bones aren't broken. It doesn't matter if a law already covers a small part of the crime. It doesn't matter if the victim should have known better. It doesn't matter if it takes a lot of work to prove.

It is wrong, and decent civilized people will have no part of it, and will resist it when they can.

 

[Asguard]

so its the idiotic porn debate "I cant define it but I know what it is when I see it" and then we ban the works of a world famous artist because apparently they DON'T know the difference. That's a piss poor excuse, laws should be black and white because one of the things they should do is tell you NOT to do something and the UK has a history of some really fucked up laws (the ones against S&M, the "antisocial" laws against teenagers hanging around a supermarket, not to mention going back to the screwed up ones which transported most of the Irish to Australia for stealing bread, Christ I need to stop watching Zero Punctuation at the moment, my inner dialogue is starting to sound like him)

I mean this is basic, this was the reason for the abolition of nobility in favour of Judges and legislators, this is the reason for the push to rewrite all Acts of parliament into plain language, "ignorance is no excuse" is fine and dandy IF the general public can actually understand what the laws do and don't want you to do. You cant write a law which says "be nice and not being nice is illegal" and expecting it to work. Laws are like the 10 commandments, they must spell out exactly what they are dealing with, don't kill people, don't bash people up, don't run over kittens etc

 

[Bells]

Bells i find it fascinating that you (a LAWYER) haven't even posted any of the law itself, its interpenetration or anything else which would actually show my comments as being WRONG. Its ok, i can read legalise, i even wrote quite a good review of the bill to bring in voluntary Euthanasia in SA and pointed out to its drafter where he fucked up. In fact your comments are even LESS substantial than the original newspaper article.

What law?

From my understanding, it is only a proposal at present, not an actual law. And what article?

The link is to a 'start new thread' in sciforums.

Have you read that link, have you? Or did you miss the part where I said the link was not a link to the article and all that we have are the few lines Orly provided in the OP?

Once again how do you define "emotional and psychological abuse" and how do you PROVE it? Not show it as part of a pattern involving physical and or sexual abuse because if that was the case there would be no need for any new laws because there are already laws covering sexual assault, common assault, rape and domestic violence.

Are you for real?

I shudder to think that you are a paramedic. Are you telling me that as a paramedic you are not even trained to spot if someone is a victim of psychological and emotional abuse?:bugeye:

The laws for domestic abuse may not and often do not cover psychological and emotional abuse Asguard.

Oh and as for your comment about taking the children away, I'm pretty sure that the family court ALREADY deals with cases like this and there are already laws about taking the children out of the country without consent etc so that's obviously not what this law is about.

What are you talking about?

I meant that partners and spouses who make such threats. I did not mean about actual child kidnapping.

The law that is being proposed in the UK would allow spouses and partners legal sanction and rights in domestic abuses cases where the abuse is emotional and psychological. Really, it's not that hard to understand why laws making domestic abuse illegal is needed and warranted.

Further more on the first statement "t if they leave you will kill yourself or the children", the first comment will get you SECTIONED (and yes i have a fair amount of experience with this one surprisingly enough), not charged and the second will get you arrested for child endangerment so continue.

What?

This is about a proposed law in the UK. Not in Australia.

The examples were given as examples of the forms and sorts of emotional and psychological abuse. This proposed law provides some legal recourse in the UK to victims of such abuse.

 

[Asguard]

oh BTW its interesting that you would consider suicide to be "abuse"

 

[Bells]

so its the idiotic porn debate "I cant define it but I know what it is when I see it" and then we ban the works of a world famous artist because apparently they DON'T know the difference. That's a piss poor excuse, laws should be black and white because one of the things they should do is tell you NOT to do something and the UK has a history of some really fucked up laws (the ones against S&M, the "antisocial" laws against teenagers hanging around a supermarket, not to mention going back to the screwed up ones which transported most of the Irish to Australia for stealing bread, Christ I need to stop watching Zero Punctuation at the moment, my inner dialogue is starting to sound like him)

I mean this is basic, this was the reason for the abolition of nobility in favour of Judges and legislators, this is the reason for the push to rewrite all Acts of parliament into plain language, "ignorance is no excuse" is fine and dandy IF the general public can actually understand what the laws do and don't want you to do. You cant write a law which says "be nice and not being nice is illegal" and expecting it to work. Laws are like the 10 commandments, they must spell out exactly what they are dealing with, don't kill people, don't bash people up, don't run over kittens etc

You have no right to be accusing anyone of idiocy at present.

I would never have thought that you would require a definition of psychological abuse. Since it is something so basic.

The law is not telling people to be nice. It is about making domestic abuse illegal.

How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond me.

 

[Bells]

oh BTW its interesting that you would consider suicide to be "abuse"

You don't think driving or pushing someone to suicide is abuse?

You don't think making all forms of domestic abuse, be it physical and psychological and emotional, illegal is a good thing?

What's wrong with you?

 

[Asguard]

You don't think driving or pushing someone to suicide is abuse?

You don't think making all forms of domestic abuse, be it physical and psychological and emotional, illegal is a good thing?

What's wrong with you?

what is wrong with expecting a LAW to actually DEFINE something, your a lawyer for fuck sake, what's wrong with YOU!

Oh and nice way to flip the scenario, firstly you state that the person who was going to commit suicide was the abuser and now your stating that the other person is pushing them to commit suicide, you don't see that you have just proved the point. Laws need to be defined in there scope, I don't know how more plain I could make that.

Ok lets look at "Assault" as an example

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 4

Definitions
4 Definitions

(1) In this Act, unless the context or subject-matter otherwise indicates or requires:
"Aircraft" includes any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air.
"Armed", in relation to a weapon, or instrument, or an offensive weapon, or instrument, that is a dangerous weapon, includes bearing or having the immediate physical possession of the weapon, or instrument.
"Authorised officer" has the same meaning as it has in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 .
"Banker" includes every director or manager of any banking company, whether incorporated or not, or of any branch thereof, and every person carrying on the business of a banker.
"Cattle" includes any horse, mare, gelding, colt, foal, filly, ass, mule, bull, cow, ox, steer, heifer, calf, ram, ewe, sheep, lamb, pig, goat, deer, alpaca, llama, vicuna, camel, or dromedary, and every hybrid or cross thereof.
"Court" and "Judge" respectively shall be equally taken to mean the Court in which or the Judge before whom the trial or proceeding is had in respect of which either word is used.
"Dangerous weapon" means:
(a) a firearm, or an imitation firearm, within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1996 , or
(b) a prohibited weapon within the meaning of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 , or
(c) a spear gun.
"Document of title to goods" includes every bill of lading, India warrant, dock warrant, warehousekeeper’s certificate, warrant, or order for the delivery or transfer of any goods or valuable thing, and every bought and sold note or document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods, or purporting to authorise by indorsement or delivery, the possessor of such document to transfer or receive any goods thereby represented or therein mentioned or referred to.
"Document of title to land" includes every deed, certificate of title, map, paper, or parchment, written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, being or containing evidence of the title, or part of the title, to any real estate or to any interest in or out of real estate.
"Dwelling-house" includes:
(a) any building or other structure intended for occupation as a dwelling and capable of being so occupied, although it has never been so occupied,
(b) a boat or vehicle in or on which any person resides, and
(c) any building or other structure within the same curtilage as a dwelling-house, and occupied therewith or whose use is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling-house.
"Governor" means, except in respect of the exercise of the pardoning power, the Governor with the advice of the Executive Council.
"Grievous bodily harm" includes:
(a) the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm, and
(b) any permanent or serious disfiguring of the person, and
(c) any grievous bodily disease (in which case a reference to the infliction of grievous bodily harm includes a reference to causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease).
"Indictment" includes any information presented or filed as provided by law for the prosecution of offences.
"Intoxicating substance" includes alcohol or a narcotic drug or any other substance that affects a person’s senses or understanding.
"Judge" -see "Court".
"Loaded arms" means any gun, pistol, or other arms, loaded in the barrel or chamber or magazine with gunpowder or other explosive substance, and with ball, shot, slug, or other destructive material, although the attempt to discharge may fail from want of proper priming, or from any other cause; and every gun, pistol, or other arms, unlawfully presented at any person, shall be deemed to be loaded unless the contrary is shown.
"Member of the crew" in relation to an aircraft means a person having functions or duties on board the aircraft.
"Minor indictable offence" means an indictable offence that is not a serious indictable offence.
"Money" includes all coined money, whether current within New South Wales or not, and all bank notes or instruments ordinarily so called, if current as such, and payable to the bearer.
"Night" means the period of time commencing at nine of the clock in the evening of each day and concluding at six of the clock in the morning of the next succeeding day.
"Offensive weapon or instrument" means:
(a) a dangerous weapon, or
(b) any thing that is made or adapted for offensive purposes, or
(c) any thing that, in the circumstances, is used, intended for use or threatened to be used for offensive purposes, whether or not it is ordinarily used for offensive purposes or is capable of causing harm.
"Officer", in relation to a body corporate or public company, includes a person who has been appointed, or acts, as an auditor of the body corporate or public company.
"Person", "Master", and "Employer" severally include any society, company, or corporation.
"Place of Divine worship" includes any building or structure ordinarily used for Divine worship.
"Property" includes every description of real and personal property; money, valuable securities, debts, and legacies; and all deeds and instruments relating to, or evidencing the title or right to any property, or giving a right to recover or receive any money or goods; and includes not only property originally in the possession or under the control of any person, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and everything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
"Property belonging to a vessel" includes every portion of its cargo, and property belonging to any of the officers, crew, or passengers thereof.
"Public disorder" means a riot or other civil disturbance that gives rise to a serious risk to public safety, whether at a single location or resulting from a series of incidents in the same or different locations.
"Railway" includes a tramway, and also includes all stations, buildings, structures and equipment belonging to or associated with a railway or tramway.
"Serious indictable offence" means an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more.
"Trustee" means a trustee on some express trust howsoever created, and includes the heir or personal representative of such trustee, and every other person upon whom the duty of such trust shall have devolved, and also any official manager, assignee, liquidator, or other like officer, acting under any Act relating to joint stock companies or to bankruptcy or insolvency and also an executor or administrator.
"Valuable security" includes every order or other security whatsoever entitling or evidencing the title of any person to any share or interest in any public stock or fund, whether of any part of the British dominions or of any Foreign State, or in any fund of any body corporate, company, or society, whether within or without the British dominions, or to any deposit in any bank; and every debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, cheque, warrant, order, or security whatsoever for money, or for payment of money, whether current in any part of the British dominions or in any Foreign State, and every document of title to land or goods, as herein defined.
(2) A dwelling-house does not cease to be a dwelling-house by reason only of being temporarily unoccupied.
(4) In this Act, except in so far as the context or subject-matter otherwise indicates or requires, a reference to an offence mentioned in a specified provision of this Act that has been amended or repealed is, or includes, a reference to an offence mentioned in the provision as in force before the amendment or repeal.
(7) A reference in any offence under this Act to causing any poison, intoxicating substance or other destructive or noxious thing to be administered to or taken by any person includes a reference to causing any person to inhale, take or be exposed to the poison, intoxicating substance or thing by its release into the person’s environment.
(8) Notes included in this Act do not form part of this Act.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 59

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
59 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

(1) Whosoever assaults any person, and thereby occasions actual bodily harm, shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence under this subsection if the person commits an offence under subsection (1) in the company of another person or persons. A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

Ie the purpose of the act is not only to define a penalty but first and foremost to define the illegal act that the law is intended to prevent.

 

[Asguard]

Actually here's and even better example

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 3

Definitions
3 Definitions

(1) In this Act:
"apprehended domestic violence order" means an order under Part 4.
"apprehended personal violence order" means an order under Part 5.
"apprehended violence order" means:
(a) a final apprehended violence order, or
(b) an interim apprehended violence order.
"apprehended violence order proceedings" means proceedings under this Act in relation to an apprehended violence order or an application for an apprehended violence order.
"authorised officer" has the same meaning as in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and includes the Registrar of the Children’s Court.
"child" means a person under the age of 16 years.
"court" means:
(a) the Local Court, or
(b) the Children’s Court,
exercising jurisdiction under section 91.
"defendant" means the person against whom an apprehended violence order is made or is sought to be made.
"domestic relationship" -see section 5.
"domestic violence offence" -see section 11.
"final apprehended violence order" means an apprehended domestic violence order or an apprehended personal violence order.
"interim apprehended domestic violence order" means an interim apprehended domestic violence order made by a court or Registrar under Part 6 or an authorised officer under Part 7.
"interim apprehended personal violence order" means an interim apprehended personal violence order made by a court or Registrar under Part 6 or an authorised officer under Part 7.
"interim apprehended violence order" means an interim court order or a provisional order.
"interim court order" means an interim apprehended domestic violence order or an interim apprehended personal violence order made by a court or registrar of a court under Part 6.
"intimidation" -see section 7.
"personal violence offence" -see section 4.
"property recovery order" means a property recovery order made under section 37.
"protected person" means the person for whose protection an apprehended violence order is sought or made.
"provisional order" means an interim apprehended domestic violence order or an interim apprehended personal violence order made by an authorised officer under Part 7.
"Registrar" means a Registrar of the Local Court or the Registrar of the Children’s Court.
"relative" -see section 6.
"stalking" -see section 8.
(2) If an apprehended violence order is varied, a reference in this Act to the order is a reference to the order as so varied.
(3) A reference in this Act to a person being present in court includes a reference to a person being present in court by way of audio visual link, being facilities (including closed-circuit television) that enable audio and visual communication between persons at different places.
(4) A reference in this Act to a finding of guilt includes a reference to the making of an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 .
(5) Notes included in this Act do not form part of this Act.

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 4

Meaning of “personal violence offence”
4 Meaning of “personal violence offence”

In this Act, "personal violence offence" means:

(a) an offence under, or mentioned in, section 19A, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 33A, 35, 35A, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 58, 59, 61, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61E, 61I, 61J, 61JA, 61K, 61L, 61M, 61N, 61O, 65A, 66A, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66EA, 80A, 80D, 86, 87, 93G, 93GA, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 562I (as in force before its substitution by the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Act 2006 ) or 562ZG of the Crimes Act 1900 , or
(b) an offence under section 13 or 14 of this Act, or
(c) an offence of attempting to commit an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 5

Meaning of “domestic relationship”
5 Meaning of “domestic relationship”

For the purposes of this Act, a person has a "domestic relationship" with another person if the person:

(a) is or has been married to the other person, or
(b) is or has been a de facto partner of that other person, or
(c) has or has had an intimate personal relationship with the other person, whether or not the intimate relationship involves or has involved a relationship of a sexual nature, or
(d) is living or has lived in the same household as the other person, or
(e) is living or has lived as a long-term resident in the same residential facility as the other person and at the same time as the other person (not being a facility that is a correctional centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 or a detention centre within the meaning of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 ), or
(f) has or has had a relationship involving his or her dependence on the ongoing paid or unpaid care of the other person, or
(g) is or has been a relative of the other person, or
(h) in the case of an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander, is or has been part of the extended family or kin of the other person according to the Indigenous kinship system of the person’s culture.
Note: “De facto partner” is defined in section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987 .

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 6

Meaning of “relative”
6 Meaning of “relative”

For the purposes of this Act, a person is a "relative" of another person (the "other person"):

(a) if the person is:
(i) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, father-in-law or mother-in-law, or
(ii) a son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son, step-daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, or
(iii) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, step-brother, step-sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, or
(iv) an uncle, aunt, uncle-in-law or aunt-in-law, or
(v) a nephew or niece, or
(vi) a cousin,
of the other person, or
(b) where the person has a de facto partner (the "person’s partner")-if the other person is:
(i) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father or step-mother, or
(ii) a son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son or step-daughter, or
(iii) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, step-brother or step-sister, or
(iv) an uncle or aunt, or
(v) a nephew or niece, or
(vi) a cousin,
of the person’s partner.

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 7

Meaning of “intimidation”
7 Meaning of “intimidation”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, "intimidation" of a person means:
(a) conduct amounting to harassment or molestation of the person, or
(b) an approach made to the person by any means (including by telephone, telephone text messaging, e-mailing and other technologically assisted means) that causes the person to fear for his or her safety, or
(c) any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or to a person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship, or of violence or damage to any person or property.
(2) For the purpose of determining whether a person’s conduct amounts to intimidation, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person’s behaviour.

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 8

Meaning of “stalking”
8 Meaning of “stalking”

(1) In this Act, "stalking" includes the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to, a person’s place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or leisure activity.
(2) For the purpose of determining whether a person’s conduct amounts to stalking, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person’s behaviour.

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 11

Meaning of “domestic violence offence”
11 Meaning of “domestic violence offence”

In this Act, "domestic violence offence" means a personal violence offence committed by a person against another person with whom the person who commits the offence has or has had a domestic relationship.

Ie the whole first sections of the act exist to DEFINE the scope of the act, who it applies to, WHAT it applies to.