The term intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence or abuse, including controlling behaviours
Introduction:
The term intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence or abuse, including controlling behaviours and stalking, by a current or former spouse or intimate partner (WHO2012). IPV is a type of domestic violence and may take the form of a single violent or abusive incident or chronic incidents that recur over time. IPV affects women, transgender people, and to a lesser extent men in all parts of the world. It was (WHO, 2018) estimated that globally, roughly 1 in 4 (26%) of ever-married/partnered women aged 15 and older have been subjected to physical and/or sexual IPV at least once in their lifetime. The lifetime IPV estimate is similar in Western Europe (15-29%) and rises to 29-38% in Sub-Saharan Africa (WHO2018).
Despite these official statistics, the One in Three campaign launched in Australia at the end of 2009 seeks to highlight that at least one in three victims of family violence are male and that up to one in three victims of sexual assault are male (8). Community attitudes in Australia also increasingly reflect this view of IPV as a gender-neutral phenomenon. While successive surveys have documented
progress in peoples understandings of what constitutes domestic violence,9 the
proportion of respondents who believe that IPV is primarily perpetrated by men
against women has decreased. From two national community attitude surveys of
1995, in which about 45% of respondents considered that domestic violence was mainly
perpetrated by men, but this decreased to 30 per cent in 2009 (12). Moreover, in 1995, only
8% of respondents stated that men and women were equally likely to
perpetrate domestic violence, but this increased to 22 percent in 2009 (13).
These different views of gender and IPV reflect what has been a longstanding,
and often acrimonious. Sociological literature states gender which is characterised by a schism between family violence researchers who see IPV as symmetrical in its occurrence, with men and women being equally likely to be perpetrators. Feminist researchers who see IPV as asymmetrical, predominantly perpetrated by men against women.14 More recently, some researchers have posited that the two groups are studying different types of IPV.15
This case study report (CSR) aims to engages with the issue of gender and its importance in
understanding IPV through an examination of the differences in mens and
womens complaints for civil protection orders in New South Wales (known as
Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders or ADVOs). This CSR focused on
Research methodology, that is, cases where the male and the female partner to a
relationship is both making allegations that the other has used violence or abuse
against them.
Research Method:
The case study employed a qualitative methods and multi-method approach to collecting and
analysing data for cross applications in proceedings as fellow (53).
1-Observation of Interviews of Women
In depth semi structured interviews with women and interviews with various professionals working within the legal system such as magistrates, and solicitors, specialist domestic violence police officers, and police prosecutors, over the period from 6 months were observed and transcripts were sourced from Womens Domestic Violence Court Assistance Schemes registry for this CSR. Most women were recruited via. Most of the interviews were conducted in-person, few were conducted over the telephone and few were recorded. Extensive notes and similarities of themes were taken during the interview observations. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using Thematic anaylsis.56 which identified not only the types of violence that the woman experienced and those that she was alleged to have perpetrated, but also the perceived context and motivation for that violence.
2 Documentary Analysis of Court Files, complaints narratives and hearings
Court files of 6 months old and two contested hearings material from a large Perth Local Courts were analysed. The files and hearings materials were examined to gather qualitative data about the nature of cross applications. This involved examining the content of the files for such matters as the gender of the first and second applicant, the type of ADVO (57) the contents of the
complaint such as history of violence, the types of acts/behaviour alleged, and fear expression, whether the parties had legal representation, how the applications were dealt with by the court, and whether there were any related legal proceedings. A very few differences identified in the content analysis of the complaint narratives reached statistical significance.
Discussion:
The qualitative and quantitative analyses were observed relying on the in-depth interviews with
women and a detailed analysis of the complaint narratives from the court files.
Four key areas of difference emerged between mens and womens cross
applications: the presence of criminal charges, whether the person seeking the
ADVO was fearful, the questionable characterisation of some acts as abuse, and
the use of lengthy complaint narratives which engaged in a range of remedial
tactics (72).
1 Criminal Charges Occurrence
In the court file sample, men and women were charged with criminal offences. Most were charged with one offence and some were charged with numerous offences. Few men were charged with contravening an ADVO, all second applicants, three of whom were subject to multiple breach charges. No women were charged with this offence. This suggests a different quality to the behaviour of male second applicants; that these men were engaged in a repetitive pattern of behaviour. One study explored the difference between men and women arrested for IPV offences also found that men were more likely to have been arrested previously for IPV, (74) including breaching a protection order (75).
2 Fear incidence
The complaint narratives in the court file sample were examined to see
whether men and women expressed fears about the violence that they had
experienced. Although this was a quantitative comparison examining whether the
person mentioned fear or not, this case study reported this finding here as fear goes
to the context and impact of other acts of violence and abuse.
To obtain an ADVO the legislation requires that the person seeking the
ADVO has reasonable grounds to fears and the commission of
certain acts and behaviours (80). In many complaint narratives, fear or
apprehension was not specifically mentioned and as it was
often included as a routine way of concluding the complaint.81 In conducting this
analysis, this CSR recognised that many applicants may well still be fearful even when the
complaint did not specifically refer to fear, and, in some cases, this might be
assumed from the contents of the complaint. As a result, this is a very
conservative indication of the presence of fear.
3 The Complaints Narratives
In the few mens cases, lodged complaints that were of a distinctly different kind; these
were lengthy complaint narratives in which the man sought to characterise
himself as wounded or the true victim. The content and nature of these
complaint narratives are consistent with past studies of Cavanagh and colleagues that have characterised it as remedial work (87). Invariably these
complaints incorporated denials, shifted blame (particularly onto the woman),
downgraded the seriousness of the acts that the man was prepared to admit to,
and/or provided a different account of the events alleged in the womans
complaint.
4 The Acts as Violence or Abuse Characterisation
A small group of complaints, primarily lodged by male second applicants,
sought to characterise acts/behaviour as violence or abuse in a questionable
manner. These complaints generally sought to characterise certain acts as
harassment,88 however these acts appeared to be better characterised as hurtful
or unfortunate; they certainly had no connection to fear or to control. What these cases highlight is the importance of considering acts and behaviours in context and the risk of adopting broad
definitions of IPV without a contextual framework.
Conclusion
This CSR complements study from other jurisdictions that has looked at
differences in men and women charged with criminal offences arising from the
use of violence or abuse against their intimate partner,92 and it is important to
note the extent to which similar themes emerge across jurisdictions and legal
responses. This CSR established, and actively demonstrated the approaches to comparing mens and womens allegations about IPV, and, in turn, illustrated the more complex picture acquired via qualitative analysis. Through the combined quantitative and qualitative data observations, a picture
emerged that suggested some differences between men and women, particularly
men who lodged their application for an ADVO after the woman had sought
protection such as differences in terms of who engaged in repeated behaviour, who
sought to identify acts that perhaps were never intended to come under the
purview of the term domestic violence, and who engaged in remedial work. In
addition the qualitative analysis revealed that research methodology not only explore
debates about gender equivalency in the perpetration of IPV, but also reveal that
some mens allegations fall within a totally different category, a category that
seeks to utilise a legal mechanism as a way to challenge womens claims for
safety. Specifically, some mens claims were not concerned with womens use
of violence, but rather were concerned with women simply doing things men did
not like, such as pursuing their legal rights, telling others about the mans
behaviour, and calling the men names. The fact that
research methodology of CSR was a particularly effective tool in generating mutual
withdrawal supports this contention. A number of areas for further research were
revealed in this CSR such as the nature of the threats alleged to have been perpetrated by men and
women and, most importantly, more research with those men who were first in
time. The centrality of gender continues to be debated in work on IPV, whether in
legal practices or research responses. It is vital to acknowledge that not all acts of violence or abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner is necessarily IPV, we need to know more than simply who did what to whom before such a conclusion can be reached.