Two weeks ago in the matter of TKG v NKQ [2015] QDC 258, Searles DCJ handed down the Courts decision in respect to an appeal of an application to vary an existing protection order made by consent in 2013.

The children were not named in the original order and that original order was due to expire on 17 October 2015 (unless extended), she made an application to vary the original order seeking to have the Protection Order be extended for a further period of two years and to name the children in the order.  

The magistrate dismissed the Appellant’s Application to vary a Domestic Violence Order and she subsequently appealed that decision.  Appeals of this nature are by way of rehearing.

The Court ought to afford respect to the decision of the Magistrate, (having in seen and heard the witnesses give evidence) but its task is to review the evidence, weigh the conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. Of the 13 grounds of appeal, the Appellant failed on each one.

Interestingly, the Appellant asserted that she at all times wanted the children named on the original Protection Order, but that member of the QPS, who prepared the application, did not include them as a result of an oversight. It contrast it was found that the member of the QPS, who prepared the application advised the Appellant that there were not enough grounds to include the children in the order and the Appellant accepted that advice.