Herald graphic

Herald graphic

Family Court judges are making decisions on protection orders against domestic violence with inadequate information, a study has found.

It has also found the legal system is failing to hold violent men accountable for breaching orders.

One judge admitted that reading documents on protection order applications and making decisions on them "often occurred during a 15-minute tea break".

Judges, Family Court lawyers and men's and women's groups were interviewed for the study, commissioned by Auckland's Inner City Women's Group and other women's support agencies.

It was presented to the Family Court Association this week, and is expected to be published next month.

The study says judges are concerned about a lack of follow-up information to tell them about the results of their decisions on protection orders - designed to protect people, usually women, from domestic abuse.

Unless the woman came back to have the order cancelled, the judge did not know what had happened.

"So that's the only feedback we get," said one judge. "Unless there's a case of, say, murder or something with a protection order."

Every month since June last year, there have been more breaches of protection orders than new orders granted.

When a protection order is granted the man is directed to attend an anti-violence programme.

But about 35 per cent of men ordered to attend programmes do not complete them, which is a breach of the protection order.

Programme organisers questioned for the study said breaches were often not recorded because of the paperwork and the difficulties it caused in maintaining a relationship with the man.

Women's advocates said women had lost faith in protection orders because of the cost involved and the failure of men to be held accountable.

Obtaining a protection order often placed women in more danger because men saw them as a "red flag", said one women's advocate.

But Union of Fathers national president Jim Bagnall said some women used protection orders vindictively, to gain sway in the courts.

He criticised what he said was a lack of evidence needed for an order to be granted.