Pros And Cons Of Law Reform
Resource efficiency
Law reform has increased resource efficiency effectively though there are limitations that are placed on these reforms. The Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Bill 2013 had enabled specific police officers the ability to issue out provisional apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVO) which had previously only been issued by the courts. Once a provisional ADVO is issued, it has to be listed within an appropriate court within 28 days, much quicker than previously. This means that a domestic violence case will be addressed quicker thus benefitting the courts cost wise and the victims in achieving safety and protection faster. Cases will be able to bypass the court when applying for a provisional ADVO and will spend less time in the court system. This reform was unquestionably needed in achieving just outcomes for victims as reported by Adelaide Now ( The Advertiser) the article titled Courts failing domestic violence, says Youth South Australian of the Year, Ms Gbla explains the fear she felt during the time the courts took to address her application for a provisional ADVO. She feared that her former boyfriend would assault her and was required to move houses two times due to immerse safety concerns. She had filed for an ADVO, in April and had still not received a court hearing date by June the …show more content…
The major change was removing the presumptions that were skewed for or against bail based on specific offences. Due to the 80 amendments that were previously made, the act was very complex and even challenging to interpret by legal professions. This meant that sometimes outcomes did not properly reflect the seriousness of the offense and there was an influx of people in prison on remand (declined bail). Statistics show that in 2012 there were 26% of prisoners that were in jail for an average of 5.7 months due to being declined
Law reform has increased resource efficiency effectively though there are limitations that are placed on these reforms. The Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Bill 2013 had enabled specific police officers the ability to issue out provisional apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVO) which had previously only been issued by the courts. Once a provisional ADVO is issued, it has to be listed within an appropriate court within 28 days, much quicker than previously. This means that a domestic violence case will be addressed quicker thus benefitting the courts cost wise and the victims in achieving safety and protection faster. Cases will be able to bypass the court when applying for a provisional ADVO and will spend less time in the court system. This reform was unquestionably needed in achieving just outcomes for victims as reported by Adelaide Now ( The Advertiser) the article titled Courts failing domestic violence, says Youth South Australian of the Year, Ms Gbla explains the fear she felt during the time the courts took to address her application for a provisional ADVO. She feared that her former boyfriend would assault her and was required to move houses two times due to immerse safety concerns. She had filed for an ADVO, in April and had still not received a court hearing date by June the …show more content…
The major change was removing the presumptions that were skewed for or against bail based on specific offences. Due to the 80 amendments that were previously made, the act was very complex and even challenging to interpret by legal professions. This meant that sometimes outcomes did not properly reflect the seriousness of the offense and there was an influx of people in prison on remand (declined bail). Statistics show that in 2012 there were 26% of prisoners that were in jail for an average of 5.7 months due to being declined