Several days ago an incident of unparallelled ferocity happened in inner city Sydney. Someone deliberately threw inflammable liquid over a young woman - and set her on fire. Residents came to her aid, tried to extinguish the fire - and called police and ambulances, but she is now in a critical condition in the burns unit of a Sydney hospital.
A police investigation has resulted in the arrest of her assailant - who also suffered burns in what was clearly a murder attempt. The young woman suffered burns to forty percent of her body and if she survives, she will be scarred for life.
Piercing together the details of this attack reveals a scenario of love that went sour. It is alleged that the attacker was a former boyfriend who refused to accept that their rift was permanent. That led to confrontations and violence that caused his former partner to take out an " Apprehended Violence Order " - commonly known as an " AVO ".
An AVO is a court order that usually requires the person named to refrain from approaching the person seeking it's protection. In some cases, it nominates that persons place of work and residence, and applies a perimeter that must not be breached. Breaking the conditions of an AVO is an offence that could result in the offender being arrested by police and charged.
The problem is that AVO's only serve a purpose if the person subjected to the order is a civilized member of society who obeys the law - and in the vast majority of cases - that it not so. In many cases the intent of the person named in an AVO is a form of revenge and this can be further fuelled by drugs or alcohol - and in some instances - mental instability.
Unfortunately, they are the only form of protection society offers those who are being stalked in instances that suggest the outcome will be violent. A depressing number of murder cases also involve an ignored AVO - and yet the police are unable to act until a law has actually been breached.
Perhaps the scope of AVO's needs a judicial review. In instances where there has been a proven record of violence and high risk, the parameters could be widened. CCTV and face recognition technology cover wide areas and should AVO's stipulate an entire suburb that a person was prohibited from entering the breach risk factor would increase sharply. Obviously, the penalty for such a breach would need to include a period of incarceration.
As things stand, the AVO is an exercise in futility. It needs teeth if it is to provide a degree of real protection !
No comments:
Post a Comment