Maybe we need a three strikes for protection order breaches?

Stuff reports:

Kerryn Mitchell​ promised the couple she had been harassing in 2012 that she would not stop.

A text message sent to the man who had a protection order against her said, “When is this going to end c…? When I’m dead.” …

A victim impact statement read out by Wellington District Court judge Ian Mill​ said it was psychological abuse that had gone on for 13 and a half years.

Mitchell was briefly in a relationship with the man, who got a protection order against her, then his now-wife was added to it in 2010.

Since then Mitchell has continued to text, leave voice messages, sending threatening mail and go to their home, breaching the protection order.

Some people take a while to get over being dumped, but 13 years is beyond obsessive.

She now has over 80 convictions for breaching, after being found guilty by a jury last week of five charges of breaching and three of attempting to breach.

She had previously been found guilty in 2019 of a breach and burglary after she had tried to open a locked door at their Wellington home.

No one should be able to breach a protection order 80 times. Protection orders sadly are almost toothless. I think what we need is a three strikes type regime where repeated breaches automatically get more severe consequences.

Doesn’t even have to be three strikes. Even 10 strikes would be better than the status quo. You could have the following:

  1. Warning
  2. Community Work
  3. Supervision
  4. Community Detention
  5. Home Detention
  6. Prison – 1 week
  7. Prison – 1 month
  8. Prison – 1 year
  9. Prison – 2 years
  10. Prison – 3 years

All I know is allowing someone to do 80 breaches of a protection order is a ssytem not working.

The victims have spent more than $60,000 on a security system aimed solely at Mitchell.

The poor victims

Comments (54)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment

%d bloggers like this: