- 03 8391 8411
- 0423 729 686
- Level 1, 91 William Street, Melbourne
Court:
Facts:
This matter involves 2 Applications for Personal Safety Intervention Orders (IVO) made against the Respondent. The Applications were made on behalf of our client, who is the Affected Family Member (‘AFM’) and her Mother, by a member of the Police Force.
The relationship between the AFM and Respondent is that they are Mothers of children of whom share the same Father. The Respondent entered the AFM’s life in 2021, once she discovered their children share the same Father. Since then, the AFM claims that the Respondent has spread rumours about her and continues to defame her.
The AFM claims that the Respondent has threatened to assault her and her family. The Applicant states that the Respondent, along with a group of her family and friends, have previously assaulted the AFM outside a venue and posted about the incident on social media. As a result, the AFM has been subject to bullying within their cultural community. This, in turn, has made the AFM feel isolated and alone.
The Respondent is currently facing charges in relation to this assault against the AFM. After that incident, the AFM had coincidentally run into the Respondent at the same venue. Following that, the AFM and the Respondent exchanged text messages in relation to the initial incident, as well as other incidents which occurred with the AFM’s ex-partner.
As a result of the text messages, the parties arranged to meet. At this meeting, an altercation and discussion occurred, and the AFM believed that the matter was now dealt with and over. However, following the meeting, the AFM received a series of menacing phone calls and text messages from the Respondent, calling her a psychopath, that they were going to f*** her up, and how they were not done yet.
Following that, the Respondent attended the AFM’s home looking for the AFM. The AFM’s Mother answered the door. The Respondent then lied to the AFM’s Mother to get the AFM’s Mother to open the door and allow her inside the home. Once the Respondent was inside the home, she assaulted the AFM’s Mother, and dragged her out on the street where she continued to assault her, with the assistance of 10 of the Respondents friends. The Respondent then stole the AFM’s Mother’s phone and called the AFM saying, “I am going to f***ing kill your mum.” The AFM and the AFM’s Mother continue to receive abusive calls from the Respondent.
Police held concerns for the AFM and her family’s welfare. The initial IVO Application also lists the AFM’s child as a Protected Person. The second IVO Application, listing the Mother as the AFM, also lists 7 other family members as Protected Persons.
The IVO Applications requests that the Respondent is prohibited from:
Cross-Application Against Our Client:
Throughout this matter, the Respondent made a cross-application for a Personal Safety IVO against our client, the AFM, listing herself and her child as the Affected Persons. Our client was the Respondent in respect to this Application.
The Applicant stated that our client has been posting threats and bullying the Applicant online through platforms such as Snapchat. The Applicant further alleges that our Client posts messages about the Applicant and the Applicant’s son, containing threats relating to fighting, paying the Applicant to fight, and “I’ll finish your ass in this country and go to jail.”
The Applicant states that her and our client were at the same café, although the café owner allegedly requested our client not be there. The Applicant then states that our client followed her outside and attacked her from behind, scratching the Applicant’s face and grabbing the Applicant’s wig, before being separated by friends and bystanders. The Applicant states that, after the altercation, our client posted photos of the Applicant’s wig online stating that she “beat up” the Applicant and that the Applicant “ran away”. The Applicant states there is video evidence of this incident, the Police were notified, however there was no official statement made.
The Applicant states that two of her sisters, without her consent or knowledge, attended our client’s Mother’s home, thinking it was our client’s home. The Applicant states that our client’s Mother thought the Applicant’s sister was the Applicant and they then entered into a physical altercation. Our client then posted on social media stating that the Applicant “beat up” her Mother and uploaded a video of the Applicant’s sister being arrested, stating that the Applicant “sent her sister over to beat up her mum”.
Following that incident, the Applicant has been receiving threats and abuse from friends and other community members, stating that everything has stemmed from an initial incident two years prior. This incident involved the Applicant and our client getting into a physical altercation. Our client allegedly began by laughing at the Applicant with her friends. The Applicant did not appreciate this and then proceeded to ask her “what are you looking at?”. The Applicant states that our client first attempted to hit the Applicant, which progressed into a physical fight with our client on the ground with the Applicant on top of her.
Following this altercation, our client posted on social media that the Applicant “jumped her with 15 people”. As stated in our client’s IVO Application, the parties then met up to discuss the incident. The Applicant states that she had thought they had come to an agreement, setting boundaries involving that our client stated she didn’t want the Applicant to post photos with the Applicant’s child and the child’s Father. The Applicant agreed, however alleges that our client had continued to threaten and bully her online.
The Applicant states that our client, at times, attends the children’s Father’s house when the Applicant’s child is there. The Applicant states our client and the children’s Father get into verbal and physical altercations, and the Applicant has witnessed this happening in front of the children.
The Applicant is fearful that her son will be subjected to the same abuse if our client attends the children’s Father’s address while her son is there. The Applicant is fearful that our client will continue to harass her online and in person. The Applicant requested that our client not attend specific addresses which the Applicant frequents.
The IVO Application requests that the Respondent (our client) is prohibited from:
Final Outcome:
In regard to the 2 IVO Applications made on behalf of our client and her Mother, the Court made the same Orders for both Applications in the following terms, stating that the Respondent is prohibited from:
This was a successful outcome for our client as both of the IVO Applications were permitted, and Orders were made in our client and her Mother’s favour.
In regard to the IVO Application made against our client, an Interim Intervention Order was placed. The Court ordered that the Respondent (our client) is prohibited from:
However, the Respondent may communicate with a Protected Person through a lawyer or mediator or participate in mediation by agreement with the Protected Person, only following that the Respondent does not stalk the Protected Person or engage in prohibited behaviour while doing so.
The Sunshine Magistrates’ Court later Struck Out this IVO against our client. This was a successful outcome for our client.