The ANROWS Digital Library provides links to a broad range of evidence in the violence against women sector including research papers, reports and resources.

The library is committed to providing access to high-quality and accessible (open access) evidence to ensure that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have access to research and resources that are relevant to their work in the prevention of violence against women.

Please note that some content such as journal articles and books are restricted from public access due to copyright restrictions. Please refer to the information on the record to locate these resources externally.

If you have any questions or need help accessing resources, please contact publications@anrows.org.au.


  1. ANROWS Archive
  2. ANROWS Digital Library: Complete collection
  3. Journal Articles
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12515
Record ID: 4f1246b5-14d5-49bb-962b-ed417655cf7f
Type: Journal Article
Title: Styles of judging: how magistrates deal with applications for intervention orders
Other Titles: Alternative law journal
Authors: Hunter, Rosemary
Keywords: Criminal justice responses;Protection orders
Year: 2005
Publisher: Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd
Citation: 30 (5), October 2005
Notes:  Journal is supported by Faculty of Law, Monash University.
This article discusses Australian and North American research on judicial styles in first level courts. The North American studies provide a framework for research on intervention order proceedings in magistrates’ courts in Melbourne. It looks at the typology of judicial styles suggested in the 3 North American studies and examines their application in Australia. Five different judicial styles are identified and described from 2 North American studies: the strict adherence to the Law; the Law Maker; the authoritative decision maker; the mediator; and the proceduralist. Another North American study observed civil restraining order hearings and used a typology of 5 styles of judicial demeanours: good-natured; bureaucratic; firm or formal; harsh; and condescending or patronising. It is found that individual magistrates’ styles varied between cases, in their attitude to litigants but also in their attitude to decision making. In the Melbourne study between 1996 and 1997, a total of 100 cases involving family violence, heard by 17 different magistrates, were observed. It found that authoritative decision makers applied when applicants were unrepresented; law makers when applicants were represented; bureaucratic when applicants were unrepresented but not in contested matters; good-natured when applicants were represented, especially by court support programme lawyers but never in final order applications in the absence of the defendant; and firm or formal in contested matters but never to applicants for interim orders. Victorian magistrates also appeared most often bureaucratic towards both parties, although more to the applicants than the defendants. The magistrates were good-natured to applicants too infrequently, and good-natured to defendants far too frequently. They were also more or less equally firm or formal to applicants and to defendants. It seemed that applicants would have felt unsupported in the intervention order proceedings since magistrates did not engage with then and did not send clear messages about the unacceptability of violence to defendants.
URI: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12515
ISSN: 1037-969X
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show full item record


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing