Author – Laura Summerville, Legal Practice Director

The Queensland Government has introduced a Bill to make landmark reforms to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (‘The Act’). The Bill aims to provide stronger protections for victim-survivors and hold perpetrators accountable.

From 30 April 2025, the following changes have been implemented:

1. Police Protection Direction (PPD):

Police can now issue an on the spot 12-month protection order without needing immediate court approval or intervention. Previously police issued notices (PPN) which provided temporary orders for up to five days until the matter came before a Court for determination. Typically, a court ordered protection order is for a period of 5 years.

2. Stronger penalties:

Perpetrators who commit acts of domestic violence while subject to a protection order can face up to three years in prison.

3. GPS tracking for high-risk offenders:

The Queensland Government is rolling out 150 GPS tracking devices to monitor offenders to prevent potential future harm.

4. Safeguards against misidentification:

Concerns have been raised about police misidentifying victims of perpetrators. The new laws include review mechanisms to ensure the right individuals receive protection. 

5. The video recorded evidence in chief (VREC) scheme:

This has been under trial and will be expanded across Queensland.

The most notable changes are providing the police powers to issue a Police Protection Direction (‘PPD’). This direction is a temporary order made by the police and issued ‘on the spot’ to alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. The order remains in force for 12 months without requiring parties to attend Court.

These reforms aim to provide immediate safety for victim-survivors while streamlining the police process. It is likely to answer the police concerns regarding too much redtape in a time when resources are stretched.

A police officer may issue a PPD if the officer reasonably believes that:

    1. The respondent has committed domestic violence;
    2. A police protection direction is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from future acts of domestic violence; and
    3. It is more appropriate to issue a PPD than make an application for

Circumstances where police will not issue a PPD and instead parties are required to attend court are:

    1. Where the respondent or aggrieved is a child;

    2. Where the respondent or aggrieved is a police officer;

    3. Where the respondent should be taken into custody in relation to the relevant domestic violence;

    4. A domestic violence order or recognised interstate order relating to the respondent and the aggrieved is in force or has previously been in force (regardless of who is or was the respondent and who is or was the aggrieved);

    5. A police protection direction against the respondent is in force or has been in force;

    6. Where the respondent has been convicted of a domestic violence offence in the previous two years;

    7. A proceeding for a domestic violence offence against the respondent has started but not been finally disposed of;

    8. An application for a protection order against the respondent has been made but not finalised;

    9. Where the respondent has allegedly used or threatened to use an offensive weapon or instrument to commit the domestic violence;

    10. Where there is an indication that’s both persons in the relationship are in need of protection; and the person who is most in need of protection in the relationship cannot be identified (cross protection orders applications); or

    11. Where a child is a named person on the PPD, and conditions other than standard conditions are needed to provide protection.

Police officers will be required to seek approval from a Supervising Police Officer. PPD’s that include an ouster, or no contact condition must be approved by a Supervising Officer of at least the rank of a Senior Sergeant, otherwise a PPD must be approved by a Sergeant.

The Supervising officer has discretion to issue a PPD or a Police Protection Notice (‘PPN’). A PPN requires parties to attend Court to consider an application for a protection order.

Can the PPD be reviewed?

Yes, parties to a PPD can review the Direction.

A police officer can on their own initiative review the PPD if they become aware of circumstances, or reasonably believes there are circumstances, that were not known or considered at the time the PPD was issued and may have affected the direction if known.

The aggrieved, respondent, authorised persons for the aggrieved or a named person may apply for a police review of a PPD.

An application for review must be made within 28 days after the PPD was issued.

The aggrieved or respondent can also, bring an application to a court to review the PPD during the 12 months the PPD is in force. A party does not need to have brought a police review to request a court review. It is important to note that a review is not an appeal.

What is considered when a PPN is reviewed?

The Court will be required to consider whether a protection order is necessary or desirable at the time of the review, not at the time the PPD was issued. The Court may make any order that is currently available in relation to hearing an application for protection order. The Court might also make an order setting aside the PPD or decide to dismiss the application or protection notice.

What are QPS electronic monitoring devices?

The Bill proposes changes for electronic monitoring of high risk domestic and family violence perpetrators. The Courts are already required to consider making ouster conditions, and conditions that prohibit the respondent from approaching, following, and contacting the aggrieved person. Under the Bill the Court will also be required to consider a monitoring device when considering these conditions of protection.

The court may impose a monitoring device if it is satisfied that:

1. The wearing of the device by the respondent is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence, or a named person from associated domestic violence or a named person who is a child from being exposed to domestic violence;

2. The respondent has been convicted of or is charged with a domestic violence offence or indictable offence involving violence against the other person or there is a history of charges for domestic violence offences made against the respondent.

3. The monitoring device may be imposed only for the period the court considers reasonably necessary in all the circumstances of the case; and

The court must give reasons for imposing the monitoring device condition.

What is video recorded evidence in chief?

The Bill will streamline and expand the framework currently in the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and ensure the complaint’s evidence is accurately and effectively presented in the Magistrates Court. The framework allows adult complainants in domestic violence criminal proceedings to give their evidence-in-chief by way of a video recorded statement.

The trial was rolled out in Ipswich, Southport and Coolangatta Magistrate Court, and due to the positive result will now be expanded across Queensland.

What is required to have video recorded evidence in chief?

In order for the video recorded evidence in chief to be admissible in a proceeding the following must apply.

  • The recorded statement must be taken by a police officer;
  • The complainant must be informed about the use of the implications of the recorded statement;
  • The statement must include a declaration by the complainant and if necessary, an oral or written translation into English;

The recorded statement can be used in various types of domestic violence proceedings, such committal and summary proceedings.

These changes are a significant change in Queensland’s domestic violence laws and will require professional and expert advice to navigate the proceedings in a timely manner.

If you need any assistance in relation to a domestic and family violence matter, contact Elysian Law today.