One Question Quiz
The proposed police approach is a de facto decriminalisation through inaction, according to law professor Carrie Leonetti. (Photo: Andrew Quilty/Getty)
The proposed police approach is a de facto decriminalisation through inaction, according to law professor Carrie Leonetti. (Photo: Andrew Quilty/Getty)

SocietyFebruary 27, 2024

Did we just decriminalise family violence? 

Guest writer
The proposed police approach is a de facto decriminalisation through inaction, according to law professor Carrie Leonetti. (Photo: Andrew Quilty/Getty)
The proposed police approach is a de facto decriminalisation through inaction, according to law professor Carrie Leonetti. (Photo: Andrew Quilty/Getty)

Police recently proposed a ‘managed withdrawal’ from family harm callouts. Critics say they’re washing their hands of the problem. 

In a briefing to the incoming police minister this month, police propose a “managed withdrawal” from family harm callouts and “advocat[e] for that role to be filled by others.” Responding to social and family harm is displacing their focus on traditional “visible” policing, they said. 

“Reducing police’s role in mental health crisis response is a clear opportunity, as is right sizing our response to family harm,” the briefing read. 

But this proposal has attracted criticism from advocates for victims of family violence. In Newsroom, Carrie Leonetti, associate professor of law at the University of Auckland, warned that “family harm” is an obfuscatory umbrella term and raised questions about how police would determine which callouts were worth attending. She wrote that by reducing meaningful accountability for perpetrators, “we have essentially decriminalised family violence.” 

Have we? 

Leonetti told The Spinoff that although the proposed police approach isn’t a formal, legal decriminalisation, it’s a de facto decriminalisation through inaction. “The police seem to be using their discretion not to arrest or prosecute in a way that is contrary to what I believe parliament intended and our family violence strategy requires,” she said. 

Te Aorerekura, the strategy Leonetti referenced, includes the following wording: “Unsafe response [to family violence] can result in violence inadvertently being minimised or condoned, causing further trauma and victimisation. Too many people affected by violence have come to regret speaking out and seeking support.”

‘Family harm’ is an obfuscatory umbrella term, according to law professor Carrie Leonetti (Photo supplied)

Julia Tolmie, professor of law at the University of Auckland, said those “low-level” incidents that may not be responded to can include those involving crimes that should be prosecuted. “I am not sure how one determines that a family harm incident does not require a police or criminal justice response without responding to the incident in order to gather more information,” she said.

She added that the problem with family violence is that the larger pattern of harm is often very hidden. “You really need to build trust with victims in order to get access to the big picture of what has been happening. If you decide – based on the immediate incident that is reported – that it is not a criminal matter, then you miss getting information about the larger pattern of harm that may be taking place. That may include very serious criminal offending.”

So how do police prioritise attendance to family harm events?

Current police policy mandates attendance for family harm events which are triaged according to urgency level. “Setting the priority rating is not only based on the kinds of events but also the associated risk and circumstances surrounding the event,” a police spokesperson told The Spinoff in a statement.

“Police may arrest in family violence situations when there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed…the risk of further violence is one of these considerations,” said the spokesperson, adding that the decision to arrest is determined on a “case by case” basis based on a risk-assessment by police. 

The triage system for family harm is the same for any other call out. That is:

Priority One (P1) – Immediate Response: 0-10 minutes 

Actual threat to life or property happening now, violence being used or threatened, serious offence/incident in progress and offenders present or leaving the scene, serious vehicle crashes (persons trapped/serious injury).

Priority Two (P2) – Timely Response: 0-30 minutes

Offenders present/held but not violent, suspicious activity not involving threat to any person, vehicle crashes but no serious injury, public order disturbance, distressed informant/victim, sudden deaths, evidence present and may be lost.

Priority Three (P3) – Managed Response: 0-24 hours

Police attendance is required when an appropriate resource is available, appointment made with caller.

Priority Four (P4) – No attendance required

Circumstances at the event lead the dispatcher responsible to consider this event does not/no longer requires the dispatch of a resource to attend.

“Every call for help from people experiencing family violence will always be taken seriously,” the police spokesperson said, but added that “family harm encompasses a range of matters, from truancy or an argument to more serious cases with assault or violence. Police are signalling that mandatory attendance at every family harm event is an unsustainable model.” The spokesperson said police are proposing a different way to triage and respond to non-urgent calls to the most appropriate services, but didn’t explain what this would look like.

In response to a question about which “others” would respond to family harm callouts in place of the police, the spokesperson said this was “not for police to design or determine in isolation.” They said that police are working in close partnership with local iwi and Māori, government and non-government organisations to develop plans to provide the best outcomes.

According to critics of this proposal, it couldn’t have come at a worse time. Calls to Shine’s 24/7 helpline have doubled in recent months. 

“It’s important if people’s safety is threatened, they can call the police and know they will get a response,” said Bonnie Robinson, CEO of Presbyterian Support Northern, which provides Shine’s family violence response service, Family Works social service and Lifeline helplines. “The police are the only ones who can enforce the law. If police don’t respond as often, who will? How will this be resourced?” Women’s Refuge has also expressed concern about the proposal. 

“It’s important if people’s safety is threatened, they can call the police and know they will get a response,” said Dr Bonnie Robinson. (Photo supplied)

Robinson told me that, while ideally preventive services would be well resourced so that family violence does not occur in the first place, that is not currently the case, so police involvement is needed to keep people safe. “Police are the only agency that has the authority to arrest and detain someone or de-escalate the situation,” she said, “and so potentially they help protect children at the address as well.”

Robinson said it’s difficult to see how the role of the police could be filled by others. “By being on the scene, police are best placed to react, especially if they know how long the situation has been going on for or past history of the address,” she said. “Family violence happens 24/7 all year round. We can’t think of any other service that can fill that police function without substantial investment and training.”

More Reading

    Find help:

    If you or someone is in immediate danger call 111. If it’s unsafe for you to speak, push 55.

    Keep going!