When domestic violence policy becomes a weapon for abusers, the system fails everyone. NSW Police’s playbook needs urgent reform.
Introduction
When domestic violence reaches the point where police are called, we expect the system to protect victims and hold abusers accountable. We expect investigations, evidence gathering, and impartiality.
But what happens when the very system designed to protect victims becomes the weapon of choice for abusers? What happens when the playbook meant to prevent harm ends up amplifying it?
This is not a hypothetical. It’s happening – right now – in New South Wales. And the consequences are devastating.
The Playbook Nobody Talks About
Let’s start with a scenario police know well: a man walks into a station and reports domestic violence. He says his partner attacked him. He wants protection.
What do officers think? Often, they think: He’s lying. They assume he’s trying to create a false alibi before she reports him. And they’re often right. Male perpetrators do use this tactic. They exploit their physical strength and toxic masculinity norms, then try to flip the narrative when they sense the walls closing in (NSW Police 2025).
So, the playbook kicks in: prioritise the woman as the likely victim – because statistically, she probably is. Officers “put his allegations to her” without deep investigation. If she denies and makes counter-accusations, the focus pivots to her claims against him. From a harm-minimisation perspective, this makes sense – as long as he is lying. It neutralises his attempt to weaponise the system and protects the person most likely at risk.
But here’s the catch: this playbook assumes gender predicts guilt. And that assumption is where everything can go very wrong.
When the Playbook Backfires
Now flip the script. Imagine he wasn’t lying. Imagine she was the abuser – and the system handed her the perfect weapon.
The same playbook becomes a tool in her hands. Police ignore his evidence – texts, photos, audio, witnesses. They dismiss his witnesses as “coached.” They never assign a detective. And then they slap an ADVO on him. Suddenly, the victim is legally restrained while the perpetrator gains leverage: control of the home, reputational damage, and a tactical advantage in family law (Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia 2024).
This isn’t just a failure. It’s system abuse – using police and courts as instruments of coercive control. NSW criminalised coercive control in July 2024, acknowledging that abuse isn’t always physical. It’s often psychological, patterned, and manipulative (NSW Government 2024). But here’s the bitter irony: the very system meant to stop coercive control is enabling it.
And if you think the courts will fix it, think again. Legal advice to men in this situation often says: “Don’t talk to police. Wait till you’ve been charged, imprisoned, denied bail. Wait till evidence against you is disclosed by the prosecutor. Only then should you defend yourself. That’s the point where you can brief your lawyer.”
That strategy might protect you legally, but it guarantees months of litigation, hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and reputational ruin. Even if you are ultimately exonerated, the process itself inflicts undeserved punishment.
The police playbook isn’t just bad practice – it’s unlawful. By assuming guilt based on gender, police breach the Anti-Discrimination Act. Breaking the law is more serious than breaking internal policy, yet this bias is baked into the NSW Police playbook.
Bottom line? A harm-minimisation reflex without investigative rigour doesn’t just fail victims – it empowers abusers. There isn’t a “naughty gene” carried exclusively on the Y-chromosome. Gender isn’t evidence. Investigation is. Coercive control is a pattern of abuse, not a gender.
Police must investigate all allegations, irrespective of gender.
My Case: Fourteen Months of Systems Abuse
I know this because I’ve lived it. I fled my apartment when the abuse got too much, and a friend warned me what she had been saying behind my back. I reported near-daily violence, sexual assault with a weapon, relationship fraud, threats to kill me, a blackmail scheme aimed at extorting a spouse visa, and coercive control. I had mountains of evidence – texts, photos, audio, witnesses. Police never opened an investigation. Never assigned a detective. Never looked at a document or interviewed a witness. From day one, they assumed I was lying. They even suppressed evidence by refusing to obtain CCTV footage of me being assaulted. Their treatment of me in person and on the phone displayed so much bias it’s difficult to put it in words – they treated me with open contempt and hostility. Police retraumatised me – they didn’t just fail to protect me – police actively compounded the harm. They didn’t even pretend to offer help. The DVLO literally laughed in my face when I asked to be connected to DV support services.
Fourteen months later, their response has been muted, but a little improved. Eventually, they assigned a junior officer to charge my abusive Ex with a much less serious offence – harassing and threatening – based on the 530 texts and calls in three days after I fled the apartment. She pled guilty under the Mental Health Act. She was convicted and sentenced to some free court-supervised counselling sessions. I genuinely hope it will help her. I really hope she’s able to be open with the counsellor.
But that conviction doesn’t change the fact that police never investigated my report of domestic violence. Never investigated the real harm she inflicted. Looking back, it feels like police weren’t just failing me – they were helping her.
I appealed to Professional Standards, LECC, even the Commissioner of LECC before she was charged. No action was taken by any of these so-called oversight bodies. The formalities are still playing out. There are still court processes to go through even though she’s been convicted and I’ve been completely exonerated.
Police now seem to be in retreat – covering up their failures. I want a copy of the interview videos of me reporting the crimes – I want to hold proof of exactly what I reported, and proof that police failed to enact their mandatory policy of response to domestic violence allegations.
Unfortunately, police have ignored, and then failed to comply with, a court-ordered subpoena for document production. Whether those tapes still exist is unclear – but police have ignored a court order, and that speaks volumes.
Police seem to be breaking the law, apparently in order to cover up their failure to follow their own mandatory procedures. My battle for transparency and accountability continues…
The Fix: Pivot from “Believe All Women” to “Investigate All Allegations”
The solution isn’t rocket science. It’s cultural and procedural. Retire the reflex “believe all women.” Replace it with “investigate all allegations.”
Keep the precautionary ADVOs. They save lives. But issuing an interim order must never be the end of the story. It should trigger a real investigation – of all accusations, irrespective of gender.
That means:
- Mandatory follow-up investigations after any ADVO.
- Equal treatment of cross-allegations.
- Detective-led inquiries in the case of coercive control.
- Safeguards against system abuse – because weaponising the law is abuse.
- Fast-track contested ADVOs to reduce process harm.
- Smart information-sharing between parallel investigations. Right now, cross-allegations (if they happen at all) are treated as separate silos. That sounds fair – but it’s a gift to abusers. If one investigation uncovers coercive control or system abuse, that must inform the other case. Why? Because coercive control thrives on manipulation. It often includes fabricated or staged evidence designed to destroy the victim’s credibility or manufacture false perception of guilt. Ignoring that context means police take staged evidence at face value. Patterns matter. Ignore them, and the system gets played.
- Real oversight: LECC audits focused on investigation completeness. LECC should publish the gender breakdown of the cases they reject and review. Let’s have transparency around any implicit or systemic gender bias in the way LECC handles its oversight of DV.
Conclusion
NSW’s coercive control reforms were meant to protect victims from patterns of abuse. But policy on paper isn’t policy in practice. When the frontline assumes the complainant is lying, issues an ADVO, and walks away, police become unwitting accomplices to abusers.
It’s time to stop pretending gender predicts guilt. It’s time to investigate all allegations. Because safety demands evidence – not stereotyping. Gender isn’t evidence. Investigation is.
Gender bias isn’t just wrong – it’s dangerous. It turns protection into persecution, which isn’t safe for anyone. It turns fear and frustration into desperation. That’s downright dangerous.
The naughty gene isn’t carried exclusively on the Y-chromosome. Coercive control is a pattern, not a gender. Investigate it – every time.
References
- NSW Police (2025) Domestic and Family Violence Guidelines.
- NSW Government (2024) Coercive Control and the Law.
- LECC (2023) Review of NSW Police Force Responses to Domestic and Family Violence.
- Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia (2024) Apprehended Violence Orders in NSW: Complete Guide.