How about three strikes for breaching protection orders?

The Herald reports:

A man with a history of violence told his ex-partner who was pregnant with their child he was going to cut the baby out of her and stomp on her stomach.

He also threatened to cut up his ex-partner’s grandmother with a machete. …

The court heard this is Stott’s sixth conviction for breaching a protection order and he has previous convictions for family violence, including male assaults female and threatening to kill.

Judge O’Driscoll said this was serious offending aggravated by his past history of violence against family members.

“You inflicted violence on a vulnerable pregnant woman … It’s clear the victims were scared and terrified as a result of your actions,” he told Stott. …

He gave Stott discounts for guilty pleas and participation in a restorative justice meeting with one of the victims, arriving at a sentence of one year and 11 months imprisonment.

I hope I am wrong, but it seems sadly inevitable this guy is going to end up killing a women, or at least trying to. But he will be out unless than two years.

Protection orders need to have teeth. They are almost entirely ineffective. How about a three strikes type regime for breaching protection orders. Something like:

Strike 1 – Automatic arrest and 48 hours in jail before appearing before a Judge
Strike 2 – Automatic electronic monitoring for 12 months, so that Police get notified if he enters a house he is banned from entering
Strike 3 – Automatic prison sentence

Comments (57)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment