The complaints process

It's back to square one.

30 August 2023 original complaint to Queanbeyan Police

September? 2024 when there was no reply from the police I complained to the Law Enforcement Complaints Commission (LECC).

5 October 2024 at the same time I complained to the LECC, I also sent complaints to Jodie Harrison, Minister for Women and for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and Minister Catley, MInister for the Police

14 October 2024 after complaining to the LECC that they hadn't answered my letter, I received a reply.

15 October 2024 I wrote to LECC asking clarification, no reply.

21 October 2024 reply to my original complaint from Queanbeyan Police with a dodgy date 20 September 2023???

26 October 2024 my reply to the above letter dated 20 September 2023??;

26 October 2024 my reply to Inspector Byrne after a telephone call

31 October 2024 reply to original complaint from Queanbeyan Police, letter noted that Jodie Harrison, Minister for Women and for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault received the letter and passed it on to Minister Catley. MInister for the Police who sent it back to the Queanbeyan Police.

The complaint letters

30 August 2023 Original complaint

To the to the Chief Inspector
Queanbeyan Police Station

My name is Caroline Ambrus, of 6 Casey Crescent, Calwell, 2905. My phone number is 0490 815 986. I am informing you about the following NSW police conduct in respect to my daughter Ilona Ambrus:

Following is a time line of events based on the police report.

22 April 2022, Craig Leith called the police informing them Ilona Ambrus had cannabis on the property. Ilona is a cancer sufferer and she uses it for medicinal purposes with permission pending. The police charged my daughter with possession which was dismissed by Queanbeyan Court under S.10.

28 November 2022, Craig locked Ilona out of their house. She broke a window to get her medicine and other necessities. Craig called the police alleging that she  assaulted him.

4 January 2023, Craig called the police complaining about cannabis and that he and Ilona had argued. He threatened her that he knew "bad people". He told her to leave the property.

8 January 2023, Ilona attended Queanbeyan Police Station to report that Craig became abusive as she was feeding the horses. He threatened her with "watch your back" and "Your daughter is going to get it".

14 January 2023, the police applied for Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders against Ilona and Craig. He did not defend the order so it was confirmed. She defended the order which was withdrawn because Craig informed the court and the police that he was not in fear of her. 

24 June 2023, After an argument with Ilona, Craig called the police. During the argument he breached the ADVO in the following ways. He videotaped her without her permission. When she tried to leave and sleep in her car he tried to prevent her by hiding her bedding. It was during winter and she had covid and was being treated for cancer at the time. She was in danger of becoming more ill because of the cold. He took possession of her motor bike so she couldn't take it with her when she left. He left it out in the weather and she couldn't move it. He struck her and she threw something at his legs. Finally, he lied to the police that she had driven her car at him and that she threatened to take tablets.

31 July 2023 she told him that she was coming to the property with her son the next day to feed the horses and that she expected him to absent himself.

1 August 2023, Craig phoned and asked her to return and she refused. He said something like 'well then that's a done deal'.  When she later arrived at the property  they were both shocked to see that the house and two containers had been destroyed by fire. There were police and firemen all over the place. She lost everything. She was not insured as the house was on a bush block which was fire prone so insurers wouldn't touch it.  He knew this as it was also his property. His alleged arson targeted every structure which contained her possessions.  Craig's reference to a 'done deal' was made clear to her then.

The police handling of the situation between Craig and my daughter has raised my concerns that much more could have been done to discourage his violent behaviour and to protect my daughter. Why wasn't he arrested and detained after his breach of the ADVO on 24 June 2023? If this had happened and if he was in jail, or otherwise punished, he would have had time to assess his options and to improve his behaviour towards my daughter. 

As stated, the first ADVO against Ilona was withdrawn as a result of Craig petitioning the court that he had nothing to fear from her. This should have alerted the police that he was the prime offender, not her. The attending police should have had access to that information before they issued her with a second ADVO. In the five months interim she was the same person. She had not suddenly become abusive. As for the common assault charge, she had the rights to defend herself against the threat to her privacy, against the threat of being held against her will and the right to defend her property against damage and theft. In spite of Craig's breach of the ADVO on 24 June 2023, neither the police nor the courts have held him accountable.

From the sequence of events it is clear that Craig was using the police against my daughter. What kind of husband reports his wife to police for having cannabis for cancer pain relief? This first contact with the police should have been sufficient to inform them that they were dealing with a very manipulative, dangerous man. This was the first of his four complaints over the next fifteen months. Each occasion clearly showed an escalation in his level of hostility towards Ilona. Yet the police did little to mitigate what was obviously becoming a dangerous situation for her. 

The police applications for an ADVO against both Ilona and Craig on the 14 January 2023 did not comply with the police Code of Practice for the NSW PF Response to Domestic and Family Violence (p.44) which discourages issuing reciprocal ADVO's to both parties. The Code (p.44) directs police to "determine who the primary victim is when attending the scene, police will consider whether there is any prior history of domestic violence or ADVOs, witness statements, the behaviour of the people involved, and whether there are any injuries, etc. If an officer is having difficulty determining the primary victim at the scene they are to consult their Supervisor or the DVLO for advice." Did the police do any of this?

On the fourth occasion Craig complained to the police they should have realised he was the perpetrator. They should have have taken strong action such as arrest and incarceration to prevent any further damage to my daughter. Instead on the 24 June she was issued with another ADVO's and a common assault charge both of which are to be heard next Monday. Because Craig was misidentified as the victim, Ilona received no help whatsoever from them. In fact she was actively pursued as an equal abuser on two occasions.

The Code (p,17) states that "police will take a proactive approach in dealing with offenders and consider arrest as well as taking action to reduce repeated offender behaviour." What proactive action have the police taken in this case? Did they do anything to mitigate Craig's mounting aggression against my daughter. When he was arrested after his alleged arson, he was detained in a Goulburn mental facility and was released early in August 2023. Why weren't the police waiting at the front gate of that facility to arrest him for breaching the ADVO on the 24 June 2023? If he had been detained until the breach had been heard and if he had been jailed, my daughter would have had some confidence that she was safe. He's now on the loose and he's still after her.

The Code states (p.44) "Police will pursue all avenues of inquiry and investigation to identify the offender. Where a power of arrest exists and there is sufficient reason to use that power, police may arrest any identified offenders. The primary objective is to ensure the safety of victim/s and the placing of the offender before the court. " Did the police do any of this in my daughter's case? They had the chance after Craig called them on the 24 June 2023. Had he been arrested and placed before a court for his breach of the ADVO, he might not have committed the alleged arson.  He might have been in jail, or might have become more fearful of the consequences of his violence and more respectful towards his wife. The damage which has been done to my daughter by him and consequently by the NSW police,  who did not take the case seriously, is hard to understand. It's harrowing for the family witnessing her trying to recover from such totally devastating and traumatic events.

This article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-31/police-misidentifying-domestic-violence-victims-perpetrators/100913268 covers police misidentification of perpetrators and victims. It points out that there has been a steady increase in women being identified as the perpetrators. The question is: Why? In my daughter's case, it is clear that by being identified as the victim, Craig had the opportunity to escalate his violence to the point of destroying everything she had. She now lives in a caravan on her property and her daily struggle is to stay healthy, to organising reconnecting essential services and a clean up after the fires, as well as working part time for the Government.

Finally the Code (p.28) states: "Police will receive specialised training – ensuring that all front-line officers and specialist investigators have the best levels of appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities when responding to family violence." Have the police in the Braidwood area received such training? If so then their efforts in Ilona's case were misguided,  minimal and futile. If not, why not?

The impact of her victimisation by her husband and the absence of police support  has had a serious emotional and a financial impact on my daughter and on the rest of the family. I am concerned about her health. She needs peace and quiet so that she can deal with the cancer and try to rebuild her home. Would you kindly consider helping her instead of frightening her with pointless prosecutions?

Yours sincerely
Caroline Ambrus
30 August 2023

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

September? 2024 When there was no reply from the police I appealed to the Law Enforcement Complaints Commission. As this was lodged on line, I don't have the record. When there was no reply from LECC I sent a reminder on 2 October 2024

cambrus@iinet.net.au
to 
contactus@lecc.nsw.gov.au

I am concerned that I haven't heard anything back about my complaint. It concerned the NSW police treatment of my daughter Ilona Ambrus. I lodged it on the online form on your website a couple of months ago. I do not have any record of this however. And I don't believe I received any acknowledgement from you.

I tried ringing you without success as my messages were not answered. I need to have an urgent answer to my complaint as my daughter is dying of cancer and I am hopeful that  we will have some feedback while she's still alive. 

The NSW police owe her an apology for trying to criminalise her over her husbands abuse. She was charged twice with acts of domestic violence and there was a cannabis possession charge and a common assault charge, all of which were dealt with very leniently by the Queanbeyan Magistrate, the charges either being dismissed or minimised.

Given that the police failed to hold her husband Craig Leith responsible for the domestic violence, he had the opportunity to escalate his abuse until he burnt her house down. Only after that did the police take her story seriously.  She lost everything and he absconded to New Zealand. There is a warrant out for his arrest on various charges including arson.

Would you please finish your investigation of this case. I need your response as I am thinking of taking this mater to the relevant politicians,

yours sincerely Caroline Ambrus

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

5 October 2024 At the same time I contacted the LECC, I also sent letters to the Minister for Women and Minister for the Police, NSW Parliament

Ms Jodie Harrison
Minister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
NSW Government

Dear Ms Harrison, 

My name is Caroline Ambrus. My daughter Noni Ambrus was a victim of her husband's abuse. She was criminalised by the front line police in her domestic violence matter instead of being helped. She was misidentified as a perpetrator. Her case is a prime example of how the real perpetrator is enabled by the police to continue and escalate his domestic violence. This is happening contrary to the good intentions of lawmakers and administrators whose aim is to keep women safe. The purpose of this letter/submission is to inform you of this police behaviour and to propose some reforms which will address police maladministration of the law, policies and procedures which are supposed to instruct them on how to do their job. The misidentification of women as the perpetrators has affected uncounted numbers of women who are subsequently criminalised (see abc.net.au/news/police-misidentifying-domestic-violence-victims-perpetrators/100913268). This police behaviour is the result of extensive lobbing by men's rights groups that women are equally violent as men, a theory which ignores the structural and and physical advantages that men have over women.

My daughter was being treated for cancer. Her husband didn't want a sick wife so he became verbally abusive. The police did not make any effort to protect her and the more they let her husband get away with his abuse, the more he escalated into physical violence. The police issued her with two domestic violence orders, a common assault and a cannabis possession charge. These were either dismissed or minimised by the Queanbeyan court. The matter came to a head when he burnt down her house and her storage containers. She lost everything. On the day that he did that she told me "I feel I have no identity". Only then did the police take her story seriously. Meanwhile he absconded back to New Zealand thus avoiding the consequences of his brutality.

I have lodged a complaint with the Queanbeyan police (30.08.2023) about the behaviour of their front line officers in this case. I have heard nothing back. Some months ago I lodged the same complaint with the Law enforcement Conduct Commission and have heard nothing back. A few days ago I reminded them that my complaint was still pending. I am writing to you in the hope that you can do something to expedite this matter which is now urgent. My daughter is in the last stages of her cancer battle and she's not expected to live much longer. I would dearly love to give her the good news that her case is receiving attention and that the police involved will be instructed to cease and desist issuing charges ad orders without thorough and relevant investigation. I am a grieving mother, but I am also angry that during her illness her husband treated her with such mindless cruelty and that the police who should have helped her, were complicit.

I've attached my submission in this matter complete with my recommendations. I will pursue this into the future regardless of whether my daughter is still with us or not. If she does not get the satisfaction of justice, I can only hope that all the other women caught up in this personal and judicial nightmare will be helped by my efforts and the work of other activists to right this egregious police wrong. The focus of government on domestic violence needs to encompass the whole system not just on the male perpetrators. Unless the police force is held responsible for its part in the escalation and continuance of domestic violence, the money, the time and the significant efforts of organisations and individuals to redress violence against women will be wasted and nothing will change.

Caroline Ambrus

Also to Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, Minister for the Hunter
Yasmin Catley, NSW Government

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

14 October 2024 After prompting the LECC I received this reply

LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION

Phone: 02 9321 6700 Fax: 02 9321 6799 Level 3, 111 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Postal address: GPO Box 3880, Sydney NSW 2001 www.lecc.nsw.gov.au

Reference: CASE20247421/3 
14 October 2024 
Caroline Ambrus 
Via email: cambrus@iinet.net.au

Dear Mrs Ambrus

You wrote to us on 17 August 2024 and 3 October 2024 with your complaint about the NSW Police Force on behalf of Ilona Ambrus.

What the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) does 
Our role is to: review how police handle complaints, and investigate cases of police misconduct and corruption where we think it is appropriate

The law says that the NSW Police Force is responsible for managing and investigating complaints of misconduct by police. Therefore, we refer most complaints to the police.

When does LECC investigate a complaint? 
Some of the reasons that we may decide to investigate a complaint are: 
the special powers of the LECC are needed to investigate a complaint 
the police cannot appropriately investigate the complaint, such as complaints involving senior police officers 
the complaint involves a system-wide issue affecting the NSW Police Force 
we have the resources to investigate the complaint

You can find more information about what we can and can't investigate here.

Assessment of your complaint 
We have carefully assessed your complaint and identified that you have previously directed your complaint issues to the NSW Police Force (EXT2023-3437). We have decided that it is appropriate for the NSW Police to deal with this matter.

Review of police handling of your complaint 
We have carefully considered the issues raised in your complaint and reviewed all relevant police holdings. We are satisfied with how police have dealt with your complaint. Therefore, the Commission will not take further action regarding this matter. 
Yours faithfully, Level 3, 111 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 www.lecc.nsw.gov.au 2

P.P. 
Team Leader, Assessments

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

15 October 2024 so far there has been no reply to this letter

The Team Leader, Assessments 
Law Enforcement Conduct Commission
Reference CASE20247421/3

Dear Sir or Madam,

In respect to your assessment emailed to me 14.10.2024, I wish to bring the following to your attention.

My original complaint (EXT2023-3437) was lodged with the Queanbeyan Police on 30 August 2023. I have heard nothing from them which is why I lodged my complaint with you.

I note that amongst the list of what you can do is to "Refer a complaint to the NSW Police Force and monitor how they handle it, to make sure their investigation is done properly". Have you done this? Given that over twelve months has elapsed since my original complaint, I think it's about time the Queanbeyan police responded. If they continue being non responsive, what can you do to ensure that they comply with the complaints process?

The matters I brought to your attention is a system wide issue affecting the NSW Police Force. The issue of police misidentifying the perpetrators of domestic violence has been the subject of extensive complaints from women's organisations, advocates, politicians, charity organisations, the judiciary, government agencies etc. references which I can send to you. Your apparent reluctance to investigate this on the basis of it being a system wide example of police maladministration is concerning. If you fail to identify this as a systemic issue, I am sure that the aforementioned people and organisations who work towards safety for women will be extremely interested.

You mentioned that you reviewed the relevant police holdings, I assume you meant documents. Would you kindly supply me with copies so I can assess the relevance of these for myself?

Yours sincerely, Caroline Ambrus

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

20 September 2023 This reply to my original complaint lodged on 30 August 2023. It is probably written recently and the date given is a misrepresentation.

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

26 October 2024 Reply to the above letter

cambrus@iinet.net.au
to #MONAROEXO
26 October, 2024

Please pass this on to

John Klepczarek, APM 
Superintendent 
Monaro Police District

Dear Mr. Klepczarek,

I am referring to my complaint lodged on the 30 August 2023 concerning police officers who attended domestic violence incidents between Craig Leith and my daughter Noni Ambrus. Firstly I am concerned that your reply to my complaint did not reach me until Monday 21 October 2024 by email as an attachment to a letter from Bradley Lynch Acting Executive Officer. I note that your letter is dated 20 September 2023. It has taken over twelve months for that letter to reach me in spite of you having my relevant details. Why did it I have to complain to the relevant NSW politicians and to the Law Enforcement Complaints Commission about your failure to action my complaint in a timely manner?

In your refusal to consider my complaint any further you stated: "This matter has been assessed and, upon review, formally declined for further investigation in accordance with Section 132 of the Police Act, 1990". I checked Section 132 of the Act and found that it said an investigation could be refused if "(e)  there is or was available an alternative and satisfactory means of redress in relation to the relevant conduct". You have rephrased this provision with "I note that the matters you raised had a formal court appearances via legal process and as such there was an alternate and appropriate means of redress." 
Your interpretation of Section 132 is incorrect and misleading. The Act's use of the words "alternative means of redress", if correctly interpreted, mean that my daughter would have had a choice in seeking and receiving justice if there was an available alternative. There was no alternative for my daughter. She was compelled to appear in court because your officers issued a common assault charge and a ADVO against her and if she did not appear she would have been arrested. The word "alternative" as used in the Act means that a person has a choice in the matter. The word  "alternate" means going from one alternative to another in a repeated pattern. This has no relevance to Section 132. You need to revisit your reasons for refusing any investigation of this matter as Section 132 is of no help to you at all. 

Your officers, namely Kim Wagner, Anthony Lymes, Tory Murray and Dale Munro, carried out a well practiced domestic violence routine of issuing joint ADVOs to the parties. This absolved them of trying to identify the prime aggressor which is lazy and/or prejudicial policing. Their behaviour breached the letter of domestic violence legislation, departmental policies, procedures and codes of conduct. They did not do anything that was actually unlawful, if this is your yardstick for bad behaviour. But their ignorance and disregard for the legislation framed by the politicians and formalised by your department's policies is concerning. It calls into question: why aren't the front line police censured for their non compliance with these instructions on how to do their jobs? Does everything have to be legislated? Why can't the public trust that the front line police will act with diligence, honesty and integrity?

I note on Facebook you wrote "I have been very blessed in my career. You can make whatever you want out [of] the NSW Police Force."  Do you and your colleagues really understand what you all have done to the NSW police force? Is the "bullying, nepotism and sexism" mentioned by your Commissioner Karen Webb what you wanted?  Both the NSW Premier Mr Minns and the Commissioner agree that ridding the NSW police force of this "horrific behaviour" might result in better policing?* And if you don't believe that the toxic politics of the police force doesn't infiltrate policing domestic violence, then you have a problem.

To resolve this complaint I expect an acknowledgement from you that your front line officers inappropriately issued joint ADVOs, that they made prejudicial comments to my daughter such as "you are as bad as each other" and "Why didn't you leave" etc.; that neither she nor Craig were assisted into counselling as an alternative to domestic violence orders; that police investigation fell short of professional standards laid out by the police bureaucracy; that police failed to withdraw the court proceedings after Craig demonstrated his culpability by destroying their house and after a request by my daughter and myself that the charges be dropped; and, that you failed to incarcerate Craig pending a court hearing when he breached his ADVO several times. If he had been in jail he may have thought better about burning their house down.

It is clear in this case and many other known to me that the escalation of domestic violence usually results from a police failure to act when this is most effective and gives the best result. By allowing male perpetrators to evade responsibility they will persist and escalate until tragedy is the result. Negligent police are protected by their superiors who issue cobbled up excuses to anyone who dares to make a complaint. In the end the community pays. And from our bitter experience, this is no small cost.

I will not take any further action on this complaint until you have responded as requested in a timely manner.

Caroline Ambrus

My address is 6 Casey Crescent Calwell, ACT and my phone number is 0490 815 986

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

26 October 2024 This letter is in reply to Inspector Byrne after we had a long telephone conversation. I am hopeful that she gets it.

Inspector Byrne
Professional Standards Duty Inspector 
Monaro Police District
6-8 Farrer Place 
Queanbeyan, NSW 2620

Dear Inspector Byrne

In reference to our phone conversation Tuesday 23 October 2024, I wish to add further details mainly for the record and in the hope that you may understand better where I am coming from and what I hope to achieve. I do realise that we have to work with the police to improve the outcome of policing domestic violence. The increasingly numbers of women being killed, incriminated and incarcerated is a situation for which the police can be held partly responsible. Given the gendered nature of domestic violence, any unjust outcomes can be attributed to dynamics between the police and male perpetrators which disadvantages women.

The NSW police force has a toxic culture of bullying, nepotism, racism and sexism which was confirmed by your Commissioner Karen Webb who is seeking an enquiry into the matter. This culture informs the behaviour of the front line police who have developed an agenda of declaring that women are equally violent as men. This belief has been popularised by men's rights activists to minimise the effect of male violence in the public consciousness and to draw women into the blame game. Your comment that women could also be violent needs to be understood within the context that they are acting defensively.

In imposing the myth of equal culpability on women, the front line police bypass the letter of the domestic violence laws and fail to comply with the published departmental policies, procedures, and guidelines which were framed to ensure that they act with honesty, integrity and dispense justice. The reality is that the police executive is sending out racist and/or sexist front line police to women who have already been scarred for life by male violence. This causes such women to be untrusting and uncooperative which gives the police the reason to deny them help and to criminalise them because they do not fit the stereotype of the ideal victim who is seen as being humble, contrite and co-operative.

The reality of domestic violence is that a man is more likely to be the one to launch a physical and psychological attack on a woman and she is more likely to respond by defending herself or others. But he is bigger and stronger than her, so she cops the most damage and will be the most intimidated and afraid. The alleged similarities of women and men in their use of violence in intimate relationships stands in marked contrast men's virtual monopoly of the use of violence in other social contexts. So why is this myth of equivalency imposed on women in domestic violence incidents?

The figures on gendered homicide is surely enough indication of who is likely the perpetrator and who is the victim. And whilst these figures are a small percentage of the domestic violence occurrences, there are significant numbers of women affected, whether this is reported or not. In drawing women into the legal process as alleged equal perpetrators, the police routinely, and with a minimum if investigation, issue ADVOs to both parties. This absolves them from the task of identifying the perpetrator while at the same time criminalising the victim, usually the woman. The effect of this emboldens the perpetrator, so he escalates until he causes a real tragedy which unmasks him. But by then it's too little too late, the woman is dead or the house is incinerated which is what happened to my daughter. The front line police are responsible for the outcome of their prejudicial policing. If they held the real perpetrator accountable, the escalation may have been prevented because the perpetrator may have been cooling his heels in incarceration considering how he could become a better man.

Policemen who are steeped in the masculine stereotype may have a problem sussing out the subtleties of relationship issues and with identifying who did what, to whom and when. Do the police have the same trouble identifying a perpetrator of other types of crime? How come they can't spot a narcissist who is gaming the system to get an advantage over his wife? These kind of men are true to type, charming, talkative and convincing while the wife who has finally snapped is cowering in a corner. The police are too ready to judge such situations without the training, the time, the investigation or the motivation. The police executive is responsible for this. Policing domestic violence is important work which affects the wellbeing of the whole community. It's time the police executive ensured that only the best people do the front line work. Added to that, the police executive needs to affirm that women are just as important as the men and are not a degraded version of humanity that men have been taught to despise.

The policing of domestic violence is different to policing other types of wrongdoing. One size does not fit all. By adopting the traditional crime busting process, the police are adding to the degree of damage instead of reducing it. Many couples in conflict need counselling not orders which funnels them into the justice system and on to jail. It's well known that the police do not consider domestic violence as real policing. But this forms 40% of their workload. So what else do the police see themselves doing? If the front line police complied with the departmental policies, procedures and guidelines which are aimed at resolving the conflict instead of adding to it with unnecessary legalities, we would see a reduction in the severity, escalation and continuation of domestic violence. Whilst the police do not hold male perpetrators accountable, they will escalate. This is a common response when a person gets away with bad behaviour. By going soft on men who abuse the women in their families, the police are giving them covert permission to do more of the same.

It is through my daughter's experience with the local police which has enabled me to have comes to these conclusions. In addition, my reading of various reports, investigations, conferences and published papers on the subject has verified everything I have written. The first aim of my advocacy is to see that the police refrain from issuing joint ADVOs and take the time and have the patience to identify the prime aggressor. My other hopes are in the following recommendations.

Regards Caroline Ambrus

Recommendations

1. Frontline police responding to domestic violence call out need to be accompanied by a trauma trained psychologist, preferably a woman. Police also should be appropriately educated to make informed decisions.
2. If police have trouble identifying the perpetrator, then further advice and investigation is needed, not the joint issuing of ADVOs.
3. If the violence is apparent, the biggest and strongest of the couple should be removed from the house and taken to alternative accommodation, the presumption being that this is the perpetrator unless otherwise proven.
4. Couples in conflict should be referred for counselling in the first instance before any ADVOs are even considered. This is to prevent the violence from becoming a pattern.
5. Police need to listen and heed a woman's version of what happened. They should not issue legal orders until all options are explored. Police who breach these standards to be removed from having any contact with the community.
6. Whether there is an issue with who should occupy the home and who should leave, the woman and children should be prioritised before the single man, no matter who might be the perpetrator. The children should not be made to suffer.
7. Male recruits to the police for should undergo psychological examination and should be excluded if they have misogynist attitudes. 
8. All police who attend domestic violence call outs are to do a thorough investigation of the couples background and the causes of the present conflict. The arbitrary issuing of ADVOs without this to be regarded as an abuse of process.
9. Affirmative recruitment for women to be practiced until 50% is reached. Along with that is equality in employment, pay, promotion, etc. Sexual harassment to be grounds for dismissal of men who cannot treat their female colleagues with respect.
10. That police who overuse ADVOs be held accountable for referring cases to court rather than making a decision and seeing through it's implementation. 
11. Restorative justice which is a more effective way of addressing domestic violence to be implemented in suitable cases instead of lodging it with the criminal justice system. 
12. All police are to observe the departmental instructions on how to do their jobs. Any failure to comply should be disciplined.

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

31 October 2024 reply to my original complaint from the NSW Police

Ms Caroline Ambrus
6 Casey Crescent
CALWELL ACT

T 290Wh
cambrus@iinet.net.au

Dear Ms Ambrus,

Thank you for your correspondence to the Hon Yasmin Catley MP, Minister for Police and Counterterrorism
and Minister for the Hunter. The Minister has asked that the NSW Police Force respond on her
behalf.

I note that your correspondence was also sent to the Hon Jodie Harrison MP in her capacity as Minister
for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, who referred the
matter to Minister Catley.

I understand that you raised a complaint with the Monaro Police District (PD) on 30 August 2023,
alleging that police had misidentified your daughter as a defendant in a domestic and family violence
matter. This was investigated as a complaint under Part 8A of the Police Act 1990, and declined under
s132(a) of the Act, on the basis that police acted appropriately and no misconduct was identified.

The Monaro PD determined that your recent correspondence raises no new issues or information that
have not already been dealt with in the 2023 investigation. The Professional Standards Duty Officer
attempted to notify you of this decision by telephone and by email on 21 October 2024.

If you are not satisfied with the response, you can contact the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission
(LECC). The LECC was established to provide independent oversight of the NSW Police Force and the
NSW Crime Commission. The LECC is responsible for investigating serious misconduct and serious
maladministration, and oversighting complaints handling. More information on how to contact the LECC
and make a complaint is available via: https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/contact-us.

Thank you for raising this matter with the Minister.

Yours sincerely,
R. Stewart.
Manager
Ministerial and Executive Services
NSW Police Force
31 October 2024

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

gipa@police.nsw.gov.au

Please forward this to:

R, Stewart
Manager
Ministerial and Executive Services
NSW Police Force

Dear Mr Stewart

In reply to your letter dated 31 October 2024 (reference T290Wh) Please note the following.

You stated that my complaint "was investigated as a complaint Under Part 8A of the Police Act 1990, and declined under s132 ((a) of the Act, on the basis tat police acted appropriately and no misconduct was identified." I checked the relevant section which states "In deciding whether any misconduct matter concerning a police officer or the NSW Police Force should be, or does not need to be, investigated or dealt with, the Commissioner may have regard to such matters as the Commissioner thinks fit, including whether, in the Commissioner's opinion— (a)  action has been, is being or will be taken to remedy the subject-matter of the misconduct matter without the need for an investigation." I was not alleging any misconduct on the part of the front line police, rather that they made the very common mistake of misidentifying the perpetrator. The police force executive sends out untrained or unsuited officers to police domestic violence who are more likely than make these kids of mistakes than more educated and experienced officers.

The section you quoted states that misconduct need not be investigated if "action has been, is being, or will be taken to remedy the subject matter of the misconduct". So if you have classed misidentification of the perpetrator as comprising and act of misconduct instead of being a mistake, would you kindly inform me as to what action you have taken to ensure that this "misconduct" does not keep on reoccurring as it is at the moment? You have relied on a section of the Police Act which I believe is inappropriate to my complaint. Instead of dismissing it, would you kindly investigate my complaint or give me your reasons for not investigating it under a more relevant section of the Police Act, if there is one.

I note you stated that my complaint was declined "on the basis that police acted appropriately." The following information corroborates that the police acted inappropriately by issuing my daughter with joint ADVOs where, without an adequate and relevant investigation, the police assumed that she was equally guilty of family violence as her husband. Your statement implies that police claim were acting appropriately by criminalising my daughter as the perpetrator when she is in fact was the victim of her husband's violence. Domestic violence has been accepted by the police force as a gendered crime, so the front line police have the power, but apparently not the inclination, to view this through gendered lens which means listening to the woman's side of the story and refraining from penalising her for not being the "ideal victim" in their eyes.

If its any help to you in furthering my complaint, the following analysis is relevant.

Logically, socially or psychologically the victim and perpetrator can't exist concurrently in the same person at the same time. However this is the assumption underlying police issuing joint ADVOs. In the case of two people conflicting, one will prevail by having an advantage over the other. People under stress lapse into familiar patterns. Men are likely to the violent and women submissive. Acting out diverging roles takes time and effort. Circumstances such as social status, body strength and knowledge of attack methods are inculcated into men as is submissive, placating and inoffensive behaviour are inculcated into women. So who is the perpetrator and who is the victim is already a predictable part of the equation.

By the time police attend a domestic violence situation, it is most likely the couple has had a history of strife and this has settled into a pattern. It is essential that police know all of the circumstances before deciding who is the perpetrator. He often presents the calm demeanour of a man who is in control. Whether this is manufactured or not depends on whether the control is actual or whether the perpetrator is a good actor. Whereas the woman who has been subjected to prolonged stress and violence is likely to be at breaking point so she lashes out in retaliation. This might give the impression that she's the perpetrator but the police have to go beyond superficial appearances. When police issue joint ADVOs they are shortcutting an investigation. Often as an excuse for joint ADVOs, the police protest that it was necessary as they has trouble identifying the perpetrator. Issuing joint ADVOs using this as an excuse means that the police are knowingly criminalising the innocent party which is often the woman. In addition, the core business of the police is the training and the ability to spot the liar. How come they have trouble doing this with domestics?

The issuing of joint ADVOs automatically gives the real perpetrator the upper hand The position of the real victim is often one of longstanding disadvantage which explains why she is the victim. By giving her an ADVO the police are adding to her disadvantage as she is then even more vulnerable to the perpetrator's bullying tactics and threats of reporting her for breaching the order. In addition as the reputed perpetrator the woman is denied access to the help she would have received if she were believed to be the victim. Factored into that are the losses of home and children and being vulnerable to jail time.

If the man who claims to be the victim often presents as cool, calm and collected, which means he is in control of his wife which is the aim of his hidden violence. This automatically makes her the victim and him the perpetrator. The police often decide that the one with the controlled, rational demeanour is being victimised by the one who is loud and angry. It's a rush decision with profound consequences. So the police abdicate making a decision and they issue joint ADVOs in the basis that both parties are equally violent. This disregards the gendered nature of the violence and the fact that men have more advantages than women and do much more damage to women than visa versa.

If the man poses as the distraught victim instead of the calm victim it is because he has managed to convince the police she is psychotic. This gets him off the hook and her onto compulsory mind numbing tranquillisers. The police need to conduct a careful investigation which takes time, intelligence and education. However what we are getting now which passes for front line policing is overwork and minimal investigations, ignorance and prejudice.This is acceptable to the police executive who as reported are doing little to fund the front line officers, educate them and support them in a tough environment.

To resolve this complaint I expect an acknowledgement from you that your front line officers inappropriately issued joint ADVOs, that they made prejudicial comments to my daughter such as "you are as bad as each other" and "Why didn't you leave" etc.; that neither she nor her husband were assisted into counselling as an alternative to domestic violence orders; that police investigation fell short of professional standards and instructions on how to do their jobs laid out by the police bureaucracy; that police failed to withdraw the court proceedings after my daughter's husband demonstrated his culpability by destroying their house and after a request by my daughter and myself that the charges be dropped; and, that police failed to incarcerate her husband pending a court hearing when he breached his ADVO several times. If he had been in jail he may have thought better about burning their house down.

It is clear in this case and many other known to me that the escalation of domestic violence usually results from a police failure to act when this is most effective and gives the best result. By allowing male perpetrators to evade responsibility they will persist and escalate until tragedy is the result. Negligent police are protected by their superiors who issue cobbled up excuses to anyone who dares to make a complaint and that includes me. In the end the community pays. And from our bitter experience, this is no small cost.

Caroline Ambrus 
5 November 2024