When Gender Dynamics Becomes Governance

How failure is something else to the NSW Police Force

 

by Caroline Ambrus

 

Over the decades there has been several reports into the dysfunctional behaviour of the NSW Police Force (NSWPF). These have arisen from concerns about the aggressive masculinity of the Police Force, though not in so many words.

 
Like most articles about the police the reports were reticent when it came to criticism. For example the latest report into police behaviour by Kristen Hilton's and Karen Webb's Final report of the Independent Cultural Review into New South Wales Police Force ( the Review)¹ approaches the persistent problem of male dominated behaviour in the Force with softened language. This follows a well established pattern of allowing the police some latitude.

The word "misogyny" was not to be found anywhere in the Independent Cultural Review, yet this was the ex-Commissioner, Karen Webb's motivation for initiating it. The word "discrimination" is used but it does not cover the extreme misogynist behaviour of police which the Review revealed though this was not named appropriately. 

The media from time to time has written fearlessly on how police have assaulted their wives and female colleagues, photographed dead women's private parts for circulation and celebration, photographed their male colleagues private parts for circulation and targeted women who are victims of domestic violence for sex. The media apparently makes more profit from calling a spade a spade and not a digging implement than writers who were advocating for women using circumlocution.

Unless a problem can be accurately identified, named and addressed, change is stalled until honesty and transparency prevails. The extreme examples quoted may be only a few, but unless the perpetrators are held accountable by the police executive, corruption and complicity is the outcome. Problems are not addressed results in their escalation and hardwiring into every day activities. What is unacceptable and unlawful becomes normal through use.

Over the years the NSWPF has become increasingly maladministered. This springs from the executive who are disconnected from the rank and file of police. The politicians are disinterested and their apparent aim is to keep the police on-side. The Review identified a disconnect between police management and staff and that leadership was ineffective. As a result the executive is not trusted. ²

 The effect of this has flowed onto every quarter of the police force and now is having repercussions in the wider community. In spite of the reports over the years, the NSWPF is trenchantly resistant to change. The aim of this critique is to uncover the reasons for this.

The "man box" in a nutshell

It's a given that all police forces are dominated by men. The situation is out of balance. There is not enough human qualities such as empathy embedded in the justice system, so the vulnerable suffer. Prejudice against women has morphed into misogyny. Harm is the outcome. 

The every-day, common variety, patriarchal ideology enables male dominance in ways which are difficult to pin down. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. This has to be identified to arrest misogyny and to repair the damage already done to unknown numbers of women. The figures are unknown because the police do not document their "mistakes" as these can be used as evidence of police maladministration.

The following is a brief description of the masculine stereotype. It is notable that this correlates with how policing has become structured and with how the police employees behave. Also noteworthy is that the feminine stereotype is the exact opposite.

The main qualities of the male stereotype are:

• Emotional Stoicism: Men are expected to suppress vulnerabilities, avoid showing sadness, and never "act like a girl". Stifling emotions like fear or pain is often equated to strength. In keeping up with this standard, men have disposed of empathy.

• Self-Sufficiency: The stereotype dictates that men should fix their own problems without asking for help or direction. Relying on others is frequently perceived as a sign of weakness and perceived weakness leaves a man vulnerable to attack from other men.

• Aggression and Toughness: Men are commonly pressured to act strong, fight back if pushed, and demonstrate physical formability which is used to intimidate rivals and women. Rough and aggressive physical sports get huge social approval.

• Rigid Gender Roles: Society often views men primarily as the financial providers or "breadwinners" for their families, while de-emphasizing their involvement in domestic chores and childcare. Men expect women to serve them physically and comfort them emotionally. Any deviation from these expectations incurs a man's wrath.

• Dominance and Control: There is an expectation for men to be authoritative, assertive, and in charge of their personal and professional relationships. This is confirmed by the rigid hierarchy which men rely on to validate their ranking in the social order.

• Hypersexuality: The traditional belief is that men should always be interested in sex. They are seen as initiating sexual encounters and persisting in the face of rejection. What women categorise as rape, men claim consent.

Policing behaviour

The Review described policing behaviour which replicated the qualities of the male gender stereotype. The Review's participants described that there were:
entrenched perceptions of bias and favouritism, harmful behaviours, weak accountability, … and systems that are outdated or inflexible. Narrow stereotypes about who is suited to policing and police leadership remain embedded, despite pockets of progress. ³

The most defining aspects of the police force is the hierarchy. This is the backbone of male domination and exists in every male cohort. Professions which have the most rigid hierarchies are those with dangerous working conditions such as the police force. 
The hierarchy dominates and is more important that the individuals who occupy the cascading layers of command, control and privilege. This rigidity creates a structure which features impunity at the top through grades of servility down to the lower ranks.

Who gets to the top? The biggest bully will make it if his main ambition is to be the alpha male with the over riding ambition of bossing everyone around, fairly or unfairly. The Review cited many instances of the rank and file in the force being dissatisfied with the executives. It stated:

"Based on our research and observations, key drivers and risk factors in NSWPF include rigid hierarchical structures and power differentials based on rank, high job demands and staff shortages, lower workforce diversity, the presence of negative leadership styles and mixed leadership capability, and fears about reporting or making a complaint." ⁴

Whoever gets to the top in the police force will be an older, white man, replete with all of his socially acceptable prejudices against women, first nations people, migrants and the disabled. The bullies target the most vulnerable people first which is the proving ground for expanding their control over more challenging targets such as intelligent, outspoken white women expressing their disgust over prejudicial policing.

Yet the flip side of this coin was articulated in the Review as: 

"Policing is such a tough sport. When you're dealing with drugs, alcohol, and out-of-control people, you end up being full on and aggressive and out-of-control yourself. The accumulation of this over many years you become quite hard. You lose those soft skills in recognising that your team has life challenges that they're dealing with." ⁵

Perhaps over the years the executive's polite facade has worn thin and the real masculine self is emerging. Maybe some executives play the gender card and project an empathy which isn't inherently theirs. On the other hand, perhaps this is the truth. 
This quote describes the rigidity and uncompromising nature of the justice system which effectively means that in policing domestic violence, there is a basic incompatibility between the way the system is structured and the problems the system mandates its employees to resolve.

The Review's first recommendation states: 

"NSWPF should ensure the composition and functioning of its executive team contains a broader diversity of perspectives, skills and experience to strengthen organisational culture, decision-making and public trust." ⁶ 

If there is going to be a shift in the composition of the executive, the first task is to modify the over-riding masculinity of the police force. There has been little progress in this so far. In fact escalating misogyny in society means that the police force is inevitably impacted.

Any efforts to ensure that the force is more humane and less dogmatically masculine are likely to be blocked by the police executive. The men in these positions of authority are "old school" misogynists drawn from the1950s and 1960s. The police force has not changed over the decades despite several enquiries wth appropriate recommendations. Apparently the present arrangements suit the executives well. 

The Review commented that:

"unsafe and harmful behaviour — particularly bullying, discrimination, verbal abuse and/or threats, and victimisation — are likely to be occurring at unacceptable levels within NSWPF and present a risk that is systemic in nature. This means that the organisation's informal setting and cultural defaults create an environment where harmful behaviours can occur repeatedly, across units, and over time. It reflects patterns, not isolated incidents." ⁷

And patterns become embedded very quickly. The Review could have gone one step further by naming the pattern and investigating why it operates in a feedback loop. The overarching ideology is patriarchal and the feedback loop is how this is renewed each generation according to predominant social condition. This pattern is activated by feminist agitation for equal rights which happens probably once or twice every century.

Where women stand, or sit, or lie down

But this time around, the social conditions have given women a bit more clout as many women are asking why they have to pander to men when they can just reach out for their own independence. Apparently the policewomen who were interviewed for the Review were requesting a better deal from the police executive. 

The Review described a generational and likely a gender split within the NSWPF which has ramifications beyond what is immediately apparent. It stated how:

Younger staff in particular expressed a desire for leaders who demonstrate care, understanding and empathy — leaders who talk openly about mental health, broad thinking and prioritise team engagement and wellbeing. Several employees questioned why, when newer generations are clearly articulating different expectations of leadership, these perspectives are not more actively embraced by the organisation. ⁸

Without the actual figures citing the gender of the "younger staff", it's a safe bet that they were women and what they have described as being essential to leadership is straight out of the feminine stereotype, which is empathy. That this style of leadership has not been taken up by the police executive demonstrates their compliance with the masculine stereotype. A balance is missing and in any such situation this deficit causes harm which spreads like a virus.

 
The Review continued with: 

"Trusted leadership begins with tone from the top and visible role modelling of the behaviours that NSWPF seeks to embed. Yet leadership remains constrained by limited diversity, fragmented vision, inconsistent respect for staff, and weak accountability for people management. " ⁹

The effect of the traditional, masculine approach to policing domestic violence has wrecked havoc, pain, trauma and even more disadvantage of women who have been affected. The influence of masculine values on front line policing has been articulated by anecdotal experience and recorded in the occasional rare study which does not shrink from speaking out with clarity and passion. ¹⁰ 

The main problem is that the law is based on a binary of guilty or innocent and fitting quarrelling couples into this frame up requires the hard-edged, masculine qualities which serves the power dynamics of society.

The front line and the executive

Being under pressure to make a quick decision, the front line police take a stab and leave it to the courts to work out the finer details. Without support from the executive, the front line police have become risk adverse as mistakes can cost them, rather than their superiors. But in this process, harm starts to accumulate.

In the absence of support, the front line police tend to rely on an assortment of prejudicial beliefs, superficial appearances and the words of lying perpetrators, usually male. They have not been allowed the time, the motivation, the organisation or the support to study the case and to making an informed decision about the reality of a couple's relationship.

By failing to study the relationship, the main evidence in domestic violence is ignored and subsequently lost. The police do not investigate this because they regards relationships as being irrelevant to the "here and now" style of policing which is incident policing. This draws a line underneath the investigation of the relationship which gives the real perpetrator the opportunity to set the stage for incident policing with the aim of deceiving the attending police.

In the face of poor support from the executive and faced with a bewildering array of codes, policies and laws, the front line police have literally thrown away the book and are doing things their own way. This is understandable to a degree as "the book" has as many as 153 fact sheets, business rules, manuals, public information, terms of reference, strategies, procedures, codes, plans, information sheets, guidelines, policies and agreements. ¹¹

When inevitably mistakes are made, the executive's contribution is a cover up because they are ultimately responsible and they don't want to look bad in front of the world. Consequently the police complaints system has been broken by vested interests. The situation just perpetuates itself which goes towards explaining the persistence and escalation of domestic violence.

The Review noted that:

"Importantly the formal settings of an organisation, such as policies, procedures and codes of conduct, may explicitly state that harmful behaviour is not tolerated and assign clear consequences for breaches of respectful behaviour; however, the gap between policy and practice is where the cultural picture of the organisation emerges. " ¹²

The "gap between policy and practice" arises from the maladministration of the organisation by the executives. The policies and processes are clear enough, but nobody is administering them and its likely that nobody reads them anyway. Non-compliance with these instruments of control has been embedded within policing. 

The mechanism which underwrites this is unlimited discretions which the police enjoy and which gives them a bullet-proof cover in the face of criticism. If this fall-back excuse fails, the police in-house complaints system mops up the mess and clears the police of any wrongdoing.

 Police executives are appointed in much the same manner as executives everywhere else which is usually based on the performance rather than on the product. This means having the right connections, the right image and the right attitudes. This maintains a system which is designed to deceive the public and the police employees because the aim of the system is to prioritise its long term survival. 

Ways and means of making changes

The structures of a patriarchal society rely on the executive class to enforce gender stereotypes which keep men in charge and women serving their personal and social demands. This has been the reality for so long that people have forgotten that it's a manufactured not an inherent state of affairs. 

Then feminism arose and questioned the status quo. The Review proposes a change whereby the police force is requested to become less dominated by the ideologies which excludes women, Aboriginals and a variety of other disadvantaged people. The outcome hoped for is that the police will become more representative of the communities they police. In other words become more democratic and less authoritarian.

There are two ways of achieving change in an organisation. The first is to attempt to change individuals' attitudes, beliefs, work habits, motivation, knowledge and commitment. This would involve serious boot camps running an agenda to make any inroads on how the incumbents behave. Old habits die hard. The present police executive is composed of aging, white men who learned their misogynism early in life by observing how their fathers treated their mothers.

The second way of making change is to depersonalise it by focusing on the structure which have given rise to such aberrant behaviour.

In its recommendations the Review focused in making changes internally which involved the present incumbents on learning new and possibly controversial changes to the ways they operated. It covered such reforms as:

 
• a broader diversity in the executive; 
• setting targets for defined outcomes; 
• accountability for managing people; 
• incentives to reduce early career attrition; 
• prioritise wellbeing, cultural inclusion and mental health for new recruits;
• independent oversight and transparency of promotion assessments to prioritise leadership capability, operational readiness and fair access;
• develop and implement a two year prevention strategy to reduce harmful behaviour; 
• improve the complaints process by promotion of pathways, resolution options, and complaint outcomes for harmful workplace behaviours; 
• management of harmful workplace behaviour by embedding person centred, trauma-informed approaches; 
• and strengthen recognition and respect for unsworn employees as critical contributors to policing and community trust.

These objectives rely on reforming the people in charge rather than focusing on the system. The old guard, on reading this list, is likely to go apoplectic. Many of these recommendations compromise the demands of the masculine stereotype which has delivered so many benefits to them and they are probably not about to abdicate their privileged position without a struggle. 

A reform of the NSWPF is overdue. But this cannot be achieved by working within the system. Power needs to be spread around for governance to be effective and transparent. The present structure and the dynastic nature of the Police Force will override any pressure for reform. 

Given the continuous rumblings from the general public that the Police Force has been corrupted with personal interests instead of serving the public good. It's time for a revolution, or at least for the more modest option of reform.

Oversight organisations which could be reformed and reconvened to resolve the problems discussed by the Report are:

• The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) needs enough funding to do its job. Its over-riding legislation needs to be rewritten giving it penal powers to address police force intransigence. At the moment it can only make recommendations which gives the police the option of ignoring any advice. Also the LECC is deliberately kept small, ineffective and powerless.

• Executive appointments need to be made on merit combined with equal opportunity for women and minorities. The hierarchical system where the incumbents are appointed executives as a reward for loyalty and longevity should be abandoned. The Police Force needs diversity which means that executives need to be appointed from outside the Force. 

• The in-house police complaints system needs to be removed from police control and delegated to an independent oversight organisation. Legislation needs to be amended to disburse the power of the police over complaints. Organisations such as the LECC and a complaints authority such as the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) are already established. Repurposing these organisations might be more easily achieved than starting from scratch.

The biggest stumbling block to reform is the political class. Given the long standing nature of police corruption and intransigence, it is believable that politicians are motivated to keep their attack dogs on side and ignore the inconvenient demands from the public for a more humane governance. In fact, the justice system has been designed to work in the way it currently does and has done so for decades.

The intervening factor could have been the public interest, but this has been sidelined by the police executive. Patriarchal systems such as the Police Force responds to demands for reform by hunkering down to protect the institution. 

There is a police standby when under pressure to reform. They appear to agree with the reformative agenda, but covertly they cling to the old, informal way of doing business in what is an act of civil disobedience against reforms which have been legislated or included in policies. This happens because there is no accountability system to ensure compliance. This impasse needs to be broken before any investment in resolving domestic violence will see the statistics trend downwards.

references

1. Kristen Hilton Advisory, Final report of the Independent Cultural Review into New South Wales Police Force, May 2026
2 ibid., p8, p11, 67, 68
3. ibid., p.11
4. ibid., p21–22
5. ibid., p.127
6. ibid., p. 24
7. ibid., p. 135
8. ibid., p. 68–69
9. ibid., p. 73
10. Dr. Peta Malins and Lauren Caulfield, Harm in the Name of Safety, Flat Out, 2025 and Deborah Richards, A call for change, Commission of enquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence, 2022,
11.https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/policies_procedures_and_legislation#letter_K
12. Hilton, op. cit., p. 135

 

 

 

**************************************

 

 

Submission to : CONSULTATION ON THE SECOND ACTION PLAN (NATIONAL PLAN TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN 2022–2032)

 

by Caroline Ambrus

 

The two questions I have addressed in this submission are:

2. Services and support.
How can services and supports work better for people who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, family, domestic or sexual violence?

4. People who use violence.
What more can be done across the community to promote healthy, safe relationships and strengthen accountability for people who use violence?

Introduction:

In any society there needs to be a balance between who has power and resources and who has not. The role of governments is to ensure that the balance of power and resources between groups is maintained. The police force has more power than any other comparable group in society. The situation is out of balance. Without accountability the police force has become ungovernable with devastating effects on society. In particular the criminalisation of women as the perpetrators of domestic violence encourages the real perpetrators to continue and intensify their abuse. Consequently women are killed, jailed, rendered homeless, lose their children and their jobs, to name a few of the consequences. The aim of this submission is to request that this is urgently addressed at the highest level of politics. Those of us whom the police have misidentified as domestic violence perpetrators need reassurance from the Government that this issue will be addressed, urgently.

I have had a great deal of experience with domestic violence from the 1960 up to now as this has affected three generations of our family, myself, my daughter and my grand daughter. In my submission I am focusing on the police as being a factor in the violence which has caused a great deal of harm to our family. Whilst it was bad enough dealing with our in-house perpetrators, the extra layer of abuse laid on us by the police and the justice system has added to our disadvantage and has created difficulties in overcoming this additional trauma.

In my submission I trace the factors which account for how police have caused domestic violence to get worse and how this has become entrenched in their operations from the front line to the executive level. But I may be a lone voice. Through my research I have noted repeatedly that researchers, women's refuge workers, academics, advocates, governments and bureaucrats tread softly when it comes to examining and criticising the police.

When maladministration is identified within the force the most repeated advice from all quarters is that the police need more education. This has been done allredy, but the domestic violence figures continue to rise. Governments are financing recovery from this when investment is needed to address its causes which are embedded in police practices. I hope my submission adds to our knowledge of how the violence begins and what and who is sustaining it.

The politicians make laws in the best interests of society but something happens between the enactment of legislation and its implementation by the police. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) and other critics have noted that the police are non-compliant with their policies and codes of conduct. This results in women suffering added abuse through the police manipulation of the system to criminalise women as perpetrators. This is where we need to focus our efforts if domestic violence is going to be successfully addressed. Governments are pouring resources into this sector but nothing changes. I hope my submission will shed some light on how they are contributing towards perpetuating domestic violence in their own homes and in the homes of others.

Summary of the issues covered in the submission

The figures

In Australia men who perpetrate domestic violence have been assessed at 43% of the general population. This figure is likely to be replicated or exceeded in the police force. Research in Australia and the US estimates that, after taking into account the variables, the figure of offending policemen is approximately 21.2%.

The NSW Police Force has 17,000 serving police. An offending rate of 20% means that 3,400 policemen have abused their wives. Double this if the offending rate is 40% which comes to 6,800 police abusing their wives. Media analysis has determined that there are 38 per 10,000 domestic violence perpetrators identified in the NSW general public. But within the NSW police force there are 9 per 10,000 similarly identified. this a dramatic difference which indicates the extend of the privilege the police enjoy. It also indicates the extent of the danger they pose to vulnerable women.

The numbers of domestic violence abusers in the police force will never be known as their wives have been threatened with being served an order. They have been silenced through fear of the consequences to them and their children if they speak out. Until this is remedied, this cohort of women will continue to lead harrowing lives.

The culture of the police force

The force is based on masculine principles. The rigidity of the law sits well alongside the simplicities and the absolutes of the masculine stereotype. The police ignore the nuances of a situation in preferences for simplicity and efficiency which is incompatible with the intricacies of human relationships.

Gender loyalty binds men in the force to each other in a way which disadvantages women. This affects the policemen's judgments in respect to perceiving how to administer the law and what decisions to make. "i've got your back" is the male response when trouble strikes. Further when someone makes a complaint against the police, gender loyalty is reflected by how the police force handles complaints. Consequently complainants are disadvantaged and justice is denied. The culture of the police force compromises accountability which allows corruption to flourish.

How domestic violence at home affects policing at work

The wife of a policeman gave testimony to the LECC that her abusive husband and his mates are the ones who volunteer to police domestic violence incidents. This suggests that within the police force there are an unknown number of policemen who get pleasure from hurting an unknown number of women. An impression of how many are involved is to look at the outcome where increasing numbers of women are being criminalised. This is in step with the explosion of misogyny in the community.

Misogynist police hide their domestic violence habit with faux legality and a number of well documented excuses which disguise what is really going on. Some of these are: gendered beliefs about the ideal victim; incident based policing; identification with the real perpetrator; failure to investigate; excuses such as "conditions in the field warranted the decision"; women and men are equally violent; and believing all women lie.

Possible solutions

The following needs to be mandated if domestic violence is to be sucessfully addressed.

* policing coercive control is mandatory as it is the only reliable way of identifying the perpetrator, of ensuring accountability and avoiding misidentification of the perpetrator;
* call outs teams should be composed of experienced police, equal genders and trauma specialists, police with negative attitudes or a conflict of interest to be excluded;
* body cameras and other aids to investigation to be utilised at all times, other relevant records to be collected, documented and kept;
* police who make a bad decision to be held accountable instead of accepting without questioning that field conditions determined the outcome;
* couples to be separated at different locations until investigation is complete, then issue orders and take other relevant actions.

 

 

**************************************

POLICEMEN WHO ABUSE THEIR WIVES

— EXPOSING HIDDEN AGENDAS

 

In 2020 my daughter was diagnosed with stage three endometrial cancer. She was married and they lived on a remote rural property near Canberra. He was a controlling husband, but seemed to be benign. With theonset of her cancer, his control turned into violence and threats. He called the police many times complaining that she was abusing him. He had flipped the script. Things went from bad to worse, as they do when a couple reaches a point where their differences totally overwhelm whatever brought them together.

I am including this story because the way the police treated her was horrifying. I was becoming aware of the way domestic violence was being policed which was according to some hidden agenda which had nothing to do with what had happened to my daughter and her husband. It seemed that the police had a well practiced routine which they imposed on the couple regardless of their problems. In this style of policing, the police disregarded their codes of conduct.

It was authoritarianism on steroids and was aimed at processing the case without wasting time addressing the cause of the disputes, or offering any help such as counseling. So orders were issued, court cases were scheduled and punishment was delivered. As a result of all of this, the disputes just escalated relentlessly along with my daughter's cancer. It came to the point where he committed a heinous act against his sick wife. He burned down her house. She lost everything she ever owned and he fled the country never to be seen again.

These events shocked me to the core. I got an ugly, up close and personal view of how policing domestic violence was being delivered. I didn't look at the perpetrator. I have seen his kind many times before. I have spent nearly three years questioning and researching police behaviour and the dynamic which is created between the parties which delivers the result the police are after. I have arrived at some useful conclusions which I am happy to share. What I witnessed about my daughter's treatment was so inhumane that I have become an activist for a change which either reforms the police in respect to domestic violence or dispenses with them entirely and contracts this work to better suited organisations.

How many policemen are perpetrators of domestic abuse?

In my quest for answers I came across the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission's (LECC) latest review. 1 It was certainly interesting reading and relevant to my work. For sometime I have been trying to locate statistics on the numbers of policemen who are domestic violence abusers. There have been surveys which give a good idea of how widespread this is. The LECC review snared a few abusive policemen when their wives complained to the police about their behaviour. But the bulk of police abusers were in hiding, protected by the fear of the women they had abused. One of the aims of this submission is to unpack this phenomena.

There are some reliable indicators revealing the numbers of police who are domestic violence abusers. A national study from the Australian Institute of Family Studies survey titled "Ten to Men" found that 43% of Australian men have used intimate partner violence in their lifetime. The breakdown of this figure was: 32% of men reported they had made an intimate partner feel frightened or anxious; 9% of men admitted to hitting, slapping, kicking, or physically hurting a partner; while 2% reported engaging in sexual abuse. 2 These figures are most likley to be reflected in the numbers of abusers within the police force unless the recruitment process has the means of weeding out men with a domestic violence habit.

A "scoping review" of domestic violence literature was published in 2025 by Briony Anderson which examined the extent of domestic abusers in the police force. The authors stated:

"The nature and extent of DFV perpetrated by police and/or law enforcement officers is difficult to quantify... Research suggests that rates are higher than in the general population but, due to underreporting and a prevailing 'code of silence' within law enforcement organisations, the actual prevalence may be much higher". 3

Overseas studies estimated more accurately the numbers of abusers within the police force. The authors quoted Roslin who wrote:

"An astonishing 40% of cops acknowledged in one U.S. survey that they had been violent with their spouse or children in the previous six months. A second survey had remarkably similar results—40% of officers admitted there was violence in their relationship in the previous year".4

The figure from the US surveys when coupled with the "ten to men" survey, strongly suggests that in Australia police abuse their wives at approximately the same rate as the police do in the UnITED States which is up to 40%. However, while this figure covers police abusers' admissions, it pays to seek out other sources.

Annelise M. Mennicke, Katie Ropes, wrote an article titled Estimating the rate of domestic violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers: A review of methods and estimates. Seven articles were examined as to how the statistics were compiled. Their conclusion was that The rate of officer-perpetrated domestic violence ranged from 4.8% to 40%. The studies examined variations in the methodological rigour which could explain the different rates. However, the pooled rate was 21.2%. 5 A "pooled rate" is an averaged rate calculated by combining data from multiple separate groups or items into a single, unified rate. But not only did the statistical methods vary, there would always be a variation because of evidence gathered through self disclosure.

What does this means in the case of the NSW Police Force? There are 17,000 serving police in NSW. An offending rate of 20% means that 3,400 policemen abuse their wives. Double this if the offending rate is 40% which comes to 6,800 police abusing their wives. These figure are damning. How many of these cases come to the notice of the police executive? Not many. Nobody is talking.

In putting this in perspective, the ABC did some arithmetic of its own. It found that:

"In the year ending June 2020, there were roughly 38 domestic and family violence offenders per 10,000 persons [charged] in NSW. Yet of more than 17,000 officers employed by NSW Police, last year just 16 were charged (or roughly 9 per 10,000)". 6

Given the various figures quoted the numbers of police offenders far exceeds offenders in the community. Yet they are charged at approximately one quarter of the rate that offenders in the community are. This exposes a closed system which has become very corrupted and out of touch with the real world. If the politicians, the advocates, women's groups and the general public truly appreciated these statistics, there would be a much stronger reaction than is the case so far.

Even the LECC's recent review commented that "rates of officer-involved domestic violence vary across existing studies, ranging from 4.8% to 40%". 7 This is further confirmation that the figures from various sources have been accepted. But while this domestic violence perpetration is admitted to researchers, it's highly unlikely that police offenders are going to inform the police executive of their marital state of affairs. Also the wives' reluctance to report their abusive husbands to the police was well documented in the review. 8

In questioning the validity of the information gathered through self disclosure, it's likely that men are much more comfortable talking about their abusive behaviour than women in discussing their victimisation. In a patriarchy men are applauded for their violence and women are censured. In addition women are routinely blamed for being abused by their husbands, so it's likely that they would feel shame at being required to answer such questions. And as far as I know, there has never been similar surveys of how much violence women have inflicted on men, which is telling.

Decision makers, politicians and the police force executives are probably anxious to keep the information about police offending from the public. The LECC has done a great service by including relevant references in their review. Getting any information out of the police is an uphill battle. The force is noted for its secrecy. The Redfern Legal Centre published a list of over one hundred documents covering police operation of every possible kind which were categorised by the NSW Police Force to be with-held from the public "where there is an Overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure". 9 One of the documents covered domestic violence Standard Operating Procedures. For advocates, refuge workers, and victims to be denied access to these documents is very concerning, especially given that the police force says one thing and does another.

What is the police culture?

The culture of most organisations is reflected on how they deal with complaints about their services. LECC's review documented how the NSW Police Force deals with complaints about offending police. This involved: "examining the police's compliance with their policies and procedures when investigating the in-house perpetrators; examining implementation of the Commission's 2023 recommendations that related to officer perpetrators; and to make recommendations to the NSW Police Force to improve the effectiveness of investigations into officer-perpetrators". 10

The LECC review did not cover the internal police culture in spite if its bearing on how this influences every police operation. This is unseen and unquestioned at every level of the police force in the same way that the patriarchy is the ever present background to daily life. The culture of the force is masculine with all of the stereotyped traits which define men. Masculinity at it's extreme turns into misogynism and without accountability, any police force is going to resort to controlling, disciplining and punishing women regardless of their codes of conduct and policies.

The Independent Cultural Review into the NSW Police Force, was commissioned in late 2024 by former Police Commissioner Karen Webb and is led by former Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton. The key focus of the inquiry is: investigating entrenched sexism, bullying, nepotism, and a 'boys' club' mentality within the ranks; sexual misconduct, targeting serial harassers and reviewing the force's handling of sexual misconduct and harassment complaints; internal procedures; and, analysing current policies, reporting mechanisms, and support systems for officers who speak up. 11

Because the police force epitomises the male stereotype, it's likely to attract young men who are insecure in their masculinity and who rely on the culture of the force for support, affirmation and for access to power which goes with discretionary policing. A circular situation is the end result with each scenario blending and bleeding into the other until we arrive at a police force where 40% of policemen are alleged to have abused their wives and then inevitably go on to abuse members of the general public, especially women who have been drawn into the legal system by their violent husbands.

When delegated with the duty of policing domestic violence, which is approximately 40 % of police work, 12 the front line police become the authority which dictates what other men's wives are allowed to do. Their own homes have become the testing ground for their actions in the field. This culture spreads beyond the force and has strengthened the misogynist push in the community. What we see now in every cohort is men trying to outdo the other in their degree of violence against women. Abusive police for example use the justice system to subjugate women in the community. This presents an image that if women disobey men then swift punishment follows and that resistance is futile because the force is all powerful.

Given the front line police's unlimited, unquestioned discretion, they have plenty of excuses they can resort to when questioned. Further, given the wrap around, unquestioned support from their superiors, any maladministration on their part is yesterday's story and everybody moves on. The in-house police complaints system ensures that most police maladministration is made to disappear.

Conflicts of interest

Resolving conflicts of interest is one of the ways which keeps organisations honest and complying with their reasons for existing in the first place. The NSW Police have a very poor record for addressing conflicts of interest. Without taking the appropriate action, corruption will flourish, and it has. Conflict of interest issues often arise when the wives of abusive policemen consider reporting their husband's behaviour to the police. As documented in the review there are several problems which arise for the victims, but foremost amongst these is their reluctance to report their husband's abuse to the police station where he works. LECC commented in its 2023 review that:

"No matter how impartial an investigator may be when investigating another officer who is known to them or works in close proximity to them, victims and others may perceive that such investigations will not be impartial".

The LECC recommended that the investigation should be transferred to another station. The NSW Police Force didn't support this. Instead it came up with a strategy which the executives hoped would suffice. A conflict of interest form called P1226 was generated which the Inspector on duty had to complete each time the issue of a policeman's domestic abuse arose. The aim of the form was to consider whether conflicts of interests could be managed locally or should be transferred to another station for investigation. In its 2026 review the LECC observed that of the 66 complaint investigations which were reviewed, 21 investigations (32%) included a P1226 and 45 complaint investigations (68%) did not include a P1226. 13

The NSW Police Force and the LECC have been at loggerheads over this issue for some years. The LECC makes recommendations and the police disagree and nothing is done. The police complaints system remains contaminated by self interest and the motivation to clear offending police of any responsibility The police did not support Recommendation 1 of the LECC's 2023 review that an investigation of an abusive policeman should be transferred to another command. The excuse given was that "The NSW Police Force ... advised the Commission that it was 'not operationally practical for the NSW Police Force to transfer these types of investigations to another command' ". 14

A woman who provided a case study for the 2026 review, specifically requested that the NSW Police Force investigate her complaint outside the police district where the abusive husband worked. She was worried about conflicts of interest if his work colleagues investigated her complaint. She told police: "I can't contact police in the usual manner because of the conflicts and the worry of [his] being at work, at the time". 15 The result of her request was that the police denied her request and investigated her husband in the local police station. They did not complete a P1226 form as to whether conflicts of interest could be managed locally. 16

Then the current review stated "The NSW Police Force advised us that the completion of the P1226 and Panel meetings chaired by Region Commanders are 2 key strategies to manage risks associated with officer-involved domestic violence". 17 The main risk in these negotiations is that the police who are supposed to comply, don't. Given that the majority of police did not complete the P1226 forms, it seems that this reform just didn't work as intended by the police executives. Maybe the Panel meetings went better.

The LECC does not have the power to compel the police to comply with its recommendations. Big mistake on the part of the legislators. Why have an oversight organisation which can only stand by while those who are supposed to be supervised run their own agenda, unrestrained. It seems the issue of conflicts of interest has just generated more conflicts, this time of disinterest. This is a sticking point which needs further investigation as to the reasons for this. This saga demonstrates the absolute contempt held by the police force for women who try to complain about their husband's violence. The result of this police maladministration for her could have been catastrophic or perhaps it was and we didn't hear about it.

The police force culture is very 'chummy' and 'I've got your back'. The boys stick together, no matter what the issue is or who gets done over. Gender loyalty is an 'us against them' kind of psychology and this is what drives the police. I believe that this is at the core of police executives resisting LECC recommendations in matters of domestic violence. However, where there is a conflict of interest, women's safety should come before men's desire to hang out with their mates.

Any groups which depends on cohesion through conflict, is doomed to become even more perverse as time goes by. Breaking up such groups is essential as new, uncontaminated blood will change the paradigm, possibly for the better. Throwing forms at an already non-compliant bunch of blokes is only going to invite more of the same. According to the LECC's observations this is what has happened. Perhaps the only way to resolve the issue of who investigates abusive policemen and where, is to farm out the work to organisations not connected with the police at all. If this is refused by the executive, then perhaps the politicians need to step in.

Conflicts of interest are at the core of how the NSW police operate. It does not seem to matter what laws, procedures, policies and codes are invented to address the issues which are affecting the public, the police find crafty ways of being seen to comply whilst doing things their own way. The really critical issue of weaning the police off incident policing onto policing coercive control will be the bellwether test for women. I am regularly reminded how the police who attended the scene when my daughter was being abused by her husband behaved. They handled the case by the book, their book which has never been published. This was my first experience of police non-compliance and I was shocked enough to embark on a long study how the police really operate.

What is the consequences of misogyny on policing domestic violence

Plenty of very disturbing effects follows the controlling behaviour of misogynist police when they attend 'domestics'. Women are the first causality, then comes their children, the whole family, the helping agencies, the law courts, child welfare and the social safety net which is groaning under the weighty result of police criminalising women and colluding with the real perpetrators. 18 The police who criminalise women don't take into account that a vulnerable woman has been done over for years by the man who was supposed to love her. What often happens is that he will drip feed torment all over his wife for a long time. He knows how to get her riled up. So when she starts to complain to the police, he escalates the torment until she reacts, perhaps violently. This is then used against her by him and by the police. She is declared the perpetrator and is arrested.

Because the up to 40% offending rate amongst policemen covers behaviour which has not been acknowledged either by the police executive or the politicians, misogyny has become the ideology which underwrites many front line policing decisions. These decisions are disguised by the formal structures of policing which has developed through legislation, policy and practice. These are the tools of police maladministration, albeit somewhat manipulated in a way which stretches credibility. The legalities are poorly drafted with many gaps which allows covert, non compliant behaviour to flourish. There is also the fall back line of unchallenged discretion that "conditions on the ground warranted the decisions made". A prime example is the criminalisation of women as the perpetrators of domestic violence which has serious, long term effects on her and on society.

The justice system didn't arrive at discrimination against women recently. There is a long history. Feminists insisted in the 1970s that something be done about domestic violence, otherwise there could be legal action against the state for dereliction of its duty of care. So the state brought in the relevant laws and structures which were quickly manipulated by academics and the police as a way of protecting men and criminalising women. The feminist push for justice morphed into police adopting inappropriate, discretionary treatment of men and women which denied that gender made any difference to the nature of domestic violence. At the time this theory was called 'sexual symmetry'. This has led to indiscriminate misidentification of women as the perpetrators of violence, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The routine has been perfected over the years and now there is a seamless system which corrals women from the first contact with police through to misidentification, criminalisation, jail and any number of other disadvantages and punishments. Misidentification amounts to the old fashioned 'frame up' of an innocent person.

The front line police, then and now, apparently fail to notice that the real abuser is often twice the size, strength and with enough resources to call the tune against his hysterical wife. Propaganda has lead the police to believe that women are equally violent to men. When she responds to abuse and attacks her abuser, the police have an excuse to criminalise her. There is no consideration of the circumstances especially those which apply to self defence or of others. By misidentifying women as the perpetrator of violence, police are often criminalising innocent women which breaches every code, policy and practice of the justice system. Basically it amounts to a police "frame up". For women, this is devastating as even the temporary domestic violence order can have serious consequences which can land them in jail and disadvantage them in other multiple ways.

The review commented that the 40% of police work which is domestic violence related means that:

"These figures suggest that most officers will investigate domestic violence incidents all through their careers. This becomes problematic when involved officers are the ones investigating these incidents as this can significantly undermine the trust and confidence of victims in reporting domestic violence to police". 19

Given the estimated large numbers of police abusers, the LECC has no idea of how many there are and how many end up on the front line. It is reprehensible that the police executive and politicians turn even the few identified domestic abusers onto vulnerable women in the community. The review included a comment by one of the wives whose abusive husband was in the police force. Her testimony in the LECC review was ground breaking because the point she made exposed the underbelly of the police force. She related that:

"And that's the thing with officer-involved domestic violence where people think it's just our niche group and we're just this little fraction of victims, but the fact is our perpetrators are the ones who call in to go to DV calls. So, it affects all domestic violence victims (…). It's a bigger issue than just us and I don't know that people understand that. So, I just feel that the prevalence of abuse within police ranks is actually something that hinders their ability to respond to DV more broadly. (…) How can they respond to DV when you've got whole towns where they're covering for their own [police] abusers?"… 20

LECC review commented:

"The Commission does not suggest that involved officers will inevitably conduct inadequate investigations into domestic violence incidents. However, we acknowledge that victims of domestic violence, and the community, may have a perception that officers who were themselves investigated for domestic violence may be less inclined to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation into a domestic violence incident". 21

Then there is the example of a policeman's abused ex-wife who was threatened by his colleagues for seeking help over the abuse. She told this to the Victims of Crime Assistance League chief executive who told the media that "Some of his workmates were calling her over a period of time, saying if she kept reporting [her ex's abuse], they'd take an AVO out against her". 22 This quote suggests that police are quite prepared to use the instruments of justice for their own purposes, such as misidentifying a woman as the perpetrator of domestic violence. It also makes clear that if the wives of abusive policemen report their husbands, then they can expect the full force of the law to come down on their heads, illegitimately.

If the testimony of these two women doesn't shake up the police force, then there is intentionality to this kind of maladministration rather than it being collateral damage through other circumstances. That the police fail to conduct an "impartial and thorough investigation" is inevitable if conflicts of interests and codes of conduct are disregarded. The numbers of abusers in the force is unknown, they might be in the front line teams or not. Just who is abusing who is unlikely to come to the notice of police executives unless a wife makes a complaint. This usually doesn't happen because:

Victims may believe that their accounts of abuse will be discredited, minimised or ignored;

fear that their partner's careers would suffer if family problems were made known to the department;

officers' in-depth knowledge of the legal system which they can use against the victim;

officers having access to confidential records and personal information, limiting a victim-survivor's ability to covertly seek help;

victims living in smaller communities where responding police may be an immediate colleague of the involved officer and personally know the victim;

officers are taught skills that help them command authority and control situations on the job; when applied within their domestic partner and family relationships this can cause 'psychologically terrorising and physically violent situations';

fears by victims that the police would protect 'their own' ;

perceived unofficial higher standard of evidence required in civil and criminal DV proceedings against a police officer when compared to a civilian perpetrator;

lack of knowledge of the legal system compared to involved officers. 23

With so many barriers to reporting it's a wonder that the police managed to cobble together enough abusers for the LECC to review. This treatment of their wives by the police adds to the abuser's impunity. It also makes domestic violence worse for other men's wives who are captured in the legal system by police with an agenda underwritten by misogyny and a domestic violence habit.

The LECC comment that abusive policemen may be perceived by the community as being "less inclined" to do their job properly is an understatement. Anecdotal evidence from victims, women's groups and researchers records that the police are not very interested in domestic violence duties. This attitude was confirmed by the inquiry conducted by Judge Deborah Richards titled A call for change, Commission of inquiry Into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence. This inquiry revealed how many police officers were frustrated that the impact domestic and family violence had on women had been exaggerated and was being treated as though it were a "big deal".

The Commissioner also noted that police have an aversion to responding to domestic and family violence incidents which results in their shortcutting the process and responding with little interest in doing a good job. However, this would exclude the police who looked forward to policing domestic violence as an affirmation of their power over women. The Commissioner suggested the causes for this motivational malaise that some police officers feel that the public does not understand or appreciate the work police do in responding to family violence. There is a common perception among police that "domestics" are not "real" police business. The commissioner was also informed that police were disappointed that they rarely got positive feedback when they did a good job. 24 Police are hanging out for the job of catching "real" criminals, not a bunch of women who couldn't please their men.

In my daughter's case charges were laid with a minimal, irrelevant investigation. This was criticised by the LECC after it considered my appeal. She was on the receiving end of two domestic violence orders, neither of which were the result of investigative due diligence. I appealed to the LECC about the first order which was a dual order issued to herself and her husband. The LECC findings was that the police investigation was inadequate, that the police did not comply with the NSW Police Force Code of Conduct or with their Standard Operating Procedures and that she was misidentified as the perpetrator of domestic violence. This made her last months of life harrowing.

But while inadequate investigations is a frequent complaint, of more concern is the US figures that approximately 40% of police are domestic abusers. This is most likely applicable to the Australian police. And apart from the domestic abusers we suspect are in the force, what about the rest of the men who come to the force straight out of the manisphere or are the graduates of the "how to drug, and rape your wife and post it on line" cohort? How do you calculate these figures and how do you account for the damage which misogynism in the force has inflicted on women? Unless this is dealt with, all that money spent on rehabilitating women is wasted.

Meanwhile the politicians are wringing their hands wondering why domestic violence is so entrenched in society and is not showing any signs of being ameliorated. The woman's voice which was amplified by the LECC Review, needs to be repeated in the halls of power until the message sinks in. Again she said "our perpetrators are the ones who call in to go to DV calls". As a comment it was nearly incidental, hardly heard or seen and quickly forgotten. Within the silences and the hapless, thoughtless dismissal of people's suffering, lies the truth. There is an urgent need for the police force to be held accountable at the highest level for condoning the actions of abusive policemen when they roar into the broken home of these broken people and impose with force or threats their misogynist ideology.
Misidentification, is it planned, purposeful and deliberate?

Misidentification of women as perpetrators has been a problem complained about for many years by official inquiries, by advocates, women's organisations and victims. The LECC review proposed that the reasons for misidentification were:

"Involved officers' knowledge of the legal system allows them to use the law as a weapon against the victim; police accept the involved officer's version of events; victims of officer-involved domestic violence are too distressed to provide police with an adequate statement at first contact; and, police investigators do not examine if there is a history of domestic violence between the parties". 25

The most significant factor in police misidentifying women as perpetrators is that those with a domestic violence habit are the first to volunteer to be on the front line teams so that they can victimise even more women.

The police do not keep records of misidentification, probably because it would not reflect well on the station where they work. Misidentification is regarded as a police "mistake" to be buried. The failure to keep relevant records is but another form of preempting potential criticism because information can be used as a weapon. Police with an agenda manipulate the rules, abuse their discretion, rely on their mates for support and lie about who did what to whom and when. Consequently misidentification is hard to pin down and what cannot be identified cannot be addressed.

The police force, the politicians and the decision makers do not realise that a subculture of misidentification exists which is used by a cohort of secretive policemen out to punish women regardless. We cannot be sure of the frequency of this but we can get some idea by following the outcome. The most relevant outcome is the escalation of domestic violence. Misidentification of women as perpetrators gives the real offender the motivation and the opportunity to do more of the same. Accused women stand to lose everything and many end up in jail, especially Aboriginal women, the disabled and migrant women.

Misidentification has steadily increased over the decades between the 1970s and now. Police are on the back foot over the issue so they are defending their hasty, inaccurate decisions with comments such as this police statement published in the review:

"The NSW Police Force is apprehensive about the term 'misidentification' as it implies that police 'got it wrong'. According to the NSW Police Force it is important to understand what actions police must take when they respond to a domestic violence incident. Officers who first arrive at the scene of a domestic violence incident must assess that specific incident and determine if an offence has been committed. If the complainant has committed an assault, under the law the complainant has committed an offence, and police must act on that offence and arrest and charge the complainant. According to the NSW Police Force this does not constitute misidentification as police must rely on the evidence in front of them. In other words, if the evidence points to the complainant as the aggressor, then police are bound by law to act. Police must also distinguish between self-defence and retaliation; self-defence allows a person to defend themselves, retaliation, by contrast is unlawful". 26

The NSW Police Force Domestic and Family Violence Guideline states:

"It is vital that the outcome of the investigation is accurately recorded in the police report to avoid a person being incorrectly identified... Upon an investigation being completed, it may be suspected or believed by police that both parties have committed a domestic violence offence. In this circumstance police have a legislated responsibility to make application for an ADVO against both parties unless there is good reason not to". 27

But in correctly identifying the perpetrator the police cannot disregard the totality of the evidence by reducing it to what they have observed on the day. Before attending, the police need to be aware of the history of the violence so that they are not hoodwinked by a perpetrator acting the victim which is something that abusive men have come to do so well. This knowledge of the case would assist police in telling the difference between perpetrated violence and defensive violence.

Apparently the police do not search their records before attending a call out as my daughter's case demonstrates. Whenever the police attended the call out, it was always in response to her husband's reporting that she was being abusive. After she was issued with the first order her husband applied to the court to have it withdrawn because he stated that he was not afraid of her. So it was withdrawn. A few months later when he called the police yet again, they issued her with another domestic violence order and a charge of common assault. These were unjustified for several reasons.

With both orders, the police had failed to conduct an appropriate investigation. Her children and her next door neighbour were witnesses and were living close by, but the police never spoke to them. They failed to take into account that the first order they issued was withdrawn because my daughter's husband had outed himself as the prime abuser. At the time they should have charged him with making a false report. At the relevant call-out, the police failed to observe my daughter's bruises which were the result being attacked by her husband. They disregarded that her action of throwing an object at her husband's legs was an attempt to slow him down as he was trying o prevent her from leaving. And finally her actions were in self defence, not retaliation, but this did no deter the police from charging her with common assault and issuing another domestic violence order.

Incident policing of domestic violence is inherently unreliable. The real evidence is the couple's relationship which is the principal evidence in every domestic violence case. But the police ignore this as having no relevance to the crime. Without policing coercive control, the police investigation is incomplete and without the relevant information, mistakes are made. This is what the police don't seem to understand and understanding is prerequisite to doing the right thing. My daughter's case demonstrated that policing to a formulae is defined by a masculine, black and white framing of the law. It doesn't work in most domestic violence cases.

It's quicker and it is less risk adverse for the police to misidentify the perpetrator and hand out orders than to work through all of the variables. The urgency of this process is supposed to protect the safety of the alleged victim. But this is a delusion cherished by the politicians and the police executives. Evidence from researchers and activists has determined that the opposite is the case. I can verify this is so because of my daughter's experience. A few weeks after the second lot of orders were issued against her, he destroyed her property and left her with no home and no possessions. Cases like this demonstrate that victims are in even greater danger because misidentification gives the real perpetrator the covert permission to continue and intensify their abuse, which is what my daughter's husband did.

The misidentified is likely to be a woman and the perpetrator a man. Over the decades playing the victim has become a male tactic and it wins over the police due to gender loyalty. Given the binaries of the justice system, it was deemed necessary to have a victim and a perpetrator so the properties of the masculine stereotype has been adjusted accordingly. Victimhood for men was made respectable with the debates last century about equality of gender violence. It gave men more options of avoiding accountability for their violence. A man, when confronted with his behaviour, could either deny it or admit the wrong and take his punishment. Most men play the victim knowing that the brotherhood of man will rescue them from too many unpleasant repercussions.

The front line teams are usually composed of men and they do not have the same degree of emotional finesse that women have, so in this absence they rely on gender stereotypes, ancient beliefs, and what they would like to see happen, or otherwise they ensure the outcome is one which they prefer. Nothing is less predictable and understood than human behaviour. What the domestic violence laws and practices do is to rob people of their humanity and puts them into legal boxes which fits the available evidence, rather than the reverse.

Because of time and money constraints, combined with ideological trappings and prejudicial attitudes, the police are motivated to arbitrarily name an offender, issue orders and leave the arguing couple for the courts to sort out. There is no police monitoring the situation. The courts have determined that a "duty of care" is not the police's duty. This is risk adverse policing at its worst. This is incident policing where misidentification is bound to be the outcome whether this is deliberate on the part of the police or not. It's time the politicians and the police executive gave up being so inflexible and defensive and made plans to reorganise domestic violence policing so that preventable maladministration such as this is addressed and corrected.

Coercive control

The new NSW laws on coercive control should ensure that the root causes of the violence will not be disregarded. These laws are an attempt on the part of the politicians to drag the tradition-bound old boys in the police force into considering a new paradigm for domestic violence. This also challenges everything the younger generation of police have learned about the laws and procedures covering personal violence. It's a major shift in the way the police are supposed to approach matters of the heart which have deteriorated into matters of hate.

The policeman who tried to debunk misidentification was relying on practices covering domestic violence which focus on the police's first impressions. This is incident policing which is a very neo-liberal, "hit and run" style of policing. It's popular with the police executive and the foot soldiers because it's cheap, quick, and enables police to process domestic violence at industrial rates. It also blames individuals for their sorrows and entirely dispenses with the social background of the violence which lets the justice system off the hook. If coercive control policing becomes established, the politicians will have to find a lot more money to fund the kind of investigation which is necessary. But it is worth pursuing because women especially will benefit immensely and we might even see the figures trend downwards.

What is coercive control? Coercive control is a course of conduct which is a sustained, repeated pattern of abuse rather than an isolated incident. It is intentional. The perpetrator acts with the specific intent to coerce, control, or dominate the victim. Coercive control create fear, dependency, or restricts the victim's agency and liberties. The LECC review listed in Table 1 the types of complaint issues investigated by the NSW Police Force. Coercive control was listed as a stand alone offence. 28 The reality is that most of the offences in this list comprise coercive control.

Such assumptions underlying the list is narrowing the definition of coercive control which means that it might not get up as the way of policing domestic violence. This might suit the police. It saves them from having to conduct prolonged investigations. But it is devastating for the victims. The parliament and the justice system cannot condone this style of policing especially when coercive control policing has been legislated and is embedded in the police codes of conduct. Both the polititians and the LECC need to be aware that incident policing may remain the policeman's shortcut, unless there is a concerted effort to bring them to heel.

Coercive control is a factor in most relationships which exhibit mental or physical violence. The aim of coercive control is man's control over the woman. This is a project which most men feel compelled to conduct because failure to control his woman is seen as a fail in the alpha male stakes and no man wants to be seen as weak. According to the male stereotype, men are supposed to control women and most men see nothing wrong with this. The opposite to coercive control is the situation where abuse and violence is a stand alone, one off occurrence which is the incident the police rely on to make their decisions. This one off violence is a rarity yet this is the model which police rely on when they deal with domestic violence.

It's more likely that the police will cling to incident policing which has become a quasi-legal, easy way to incriminate women while letting the real abuser get off. When the police arrive at the scene the wife has probably attacked her husband as a result of years of abuse. On the day, the police get a bad impression. She is not behaving nicely so she gets criminalised. Meanwhile her husband is probably putting on the victim act and, boys being boys, the police and the perpetrator will stick together in the face of a noisy, annoying woman.

The principles and practices of coercive control policing are already embedded in police policies and codes of conduct. The problem is that police fail to comply with these instruments. It's more important to them that they retain their discretion which is the source of their power over people. The provisions of the police codes need to be mandatory. Further the police complaint system needs to ensure compliance and deliver punishment for non-compliance unless there has been a good reason to depart from the rules. It's actually called accountability. If policing coercive control is to succeed, there needs to be recognition that the most important evidence is the relationship itself. The only way to ensure a fair and equitable outcome is to take this into account. In this case misidentification will become a mistake of the past.

My daughter's husband was an expert in coercive control. He knew what to do. This was obvious early in his career of abusing his wife. His behaviour ticked every box. According to the legal definition his control was intentional, purposeful and domineering. My daughter was afraid of him but dependent on him, especially since she was diagnosed with cancer. Her lifestyle was restricted by him for his own ends. He isolated her, deprived her of her friends, wasted their money on whatever he wanted, hated her children, had bad mouthed her relatives, threatened anyone who posed a risk to his reign of terror and he lied all of the time.

The activists and women's groups know what to do about domestic violence but in a patriarchal society this is not given any credibility. For starters, it's either defund the police and hand the work over to people who are capable of making the right decisions for vulnerable couples. Or the police could address the canker at its core by sifting and sorting the misogynism out of the force and initiating the laws, policies and structures in a way which works for the public rather than for the police. In other words, it's a police integrity issue and it's about time that the politicians made sure that this is the basis of policing rather than the present regime of authoritarian masculinity.

The ideal actions which the police should take when they arrive at the scene of domestic violence is to immediately physically separate the couple. Given the housing situation this is difficult. But the government just has to come to the party and provide suitable temporary accommodation. Then gather what evidence there is and leave, without comment, without issuing binding orders, and without judgment. It is absolutely necessary that when people reach this state of crisis the worst thing for anyone to do is to make decisions in a hurry with life altering consequences. There is always time later to make sound decisions.

The cost of mopping up after the violence far exceeds, I'm sure, the cost of preventative action. But getting rid of the misogynist foot soldiers in the police force will take some rethinking of what the police are all about. This implies a revolution which the patriarchy doesn't appear to countenance. Many people believe that domestic violence is inevitable. This perception has to change. What we can do in the meantime is "man the barricades". if the suffragettes were able to achieve the vote by blowing up letterboxes, I am sure we can do the same today by blowing up the internet.

References

1. Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), Review of NSW Police Force investigations of police officers involved in domestic and family violence incidents, April 2026.
2. Australian Institute of Family Studies survey, "Ten to Men", 2025, https://aifs.gov.au/tentomen
3. Briony Anderson, Clare Farmer, Danielle Tyson, Police-Perpetrated Domestic and Family Violence: A Scoping Review of Australian and International Scholarship, 2025, p46
4. Alex Roslin, The Secret Epidemic of Police Domestic Violence: How It Affects Us All, published in Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, 8(4), 2016, 319–329
5. Annelise M. Mennicke, Katie Ropes, wrote an article titled Estimating the rate of domestic violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers: A review of methods and estimates, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178916301331
6.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-10/nsw-police-officers-charged-with-domestic-violence-2020-victims/100114114
7.. LECC op. cit., p.40
8. ibid, p. 39-40
9. Redfern Legal Centre, https://rlc.org.au/resources/papers-and-submissions/nsw-police-standard-operating-procedures-sops
10. LECC, op. cit., p.7
11. Independent Cultural Review into the NSW Police Force, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-27/nsw-police-review-culture-underway-victims-sceptical/105099234
12. LECC, op.cit., p. 39
13. ibid., p. 17
14. ibid., p.18
15. ibid., p. 17
16. ibid.
17. ibid., p. 36
18. Dr. Peta Malins and Lauren Caulfeld, Harm in the Name of Safety, Flat Out, 2025
19. LECC, op. cit., p. 39
20. ibid., p. 39
21. ibid.
22. ABC, More NSW Police officers charged with domestic violence as victims face ongoing problems getting help, report by Hayley Gleeson, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-10/nsw-police-officers-charged-with-domestic-violence-2020-victims/100114114
23. LECC, op. cit., p. 40
24. Deborah Richards, A call for change, Commisson of enquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence, 2022, p. 17
25. LECC, op. cit., p. 45
26. ibid., p. 46
27. NSW Police Force Domestic and Family Violence Guidelines, Version 2.0 2025, page 20
28. LECC, op. cit., p.14

 

***********************************