Supreme Court rules wording on police interim intervention orders 'too vague'
Thousands of restraining orders in South Australia may need to be reviewed because of a Supreme Court ruling on a certain phrase.
Police interim intervention orders or court intervention orders issued prior to October 2, 2014 may contain the words "in the vicinity of", a phrase that has been deemed invalid by the Supreme Court.
In a bid to tighten restrictions to better protect victims, the Supreme Court ruled the phrase was too vague and orders must now specify a precise distance.
However, police are reassuring people their orders are still enforceable even if they contain the invalid phrase.
"The message is also for defendants that the order is still valid and that police will still comply and ensure that that order is complied with," a police spokesperson said.
Police have encouraged anyone who is concerned about their order to speak to them about updating it, however warned a magistrate may have to reassess the entire order.
"You should know that if you ask for a variation, the court must hear from the defendant prior to varying an order and the whole order may be reassessed by a magistrate," police said.
Arman Abrahimzadeh's mother, Zahra Abrahimzadeh, was killed by her estranged husband in front of hundreds of people at the Adelaide Convention Centre in early 2010, despite having a restraining order.
While the restraining order was unable to save Mr Abrahimzadeh's mother, he is supportive of the changes to terminology on intervention orders.
"These criminal need boundaries, and they need to be defined very clearly," he said.
"At the end of the day that piece of paper, whether if you want to change it or not, and whether it's going to protect you or not, that's a separate issue."
