A conviction for breach of an interim family violence restraining order will constitute “an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party” for the purpose of the mandatory cross examination ban in section 219AK(1)(c)(i) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) (which reflects section 102NA(1)(c)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975).

The trial before Justice Berry in the Family Court of Western Australia in July 2025 was vacated on day one.

Following separation, the Father distributed intimate images of the Mother, without her consent, to his new partner. He pleaded guilty and was convicted to charges pursuant to s 221BD(2) of the Criminal Code (WA), and was sentenced to a 10 month intensive supervision order. 

The Mother obtained an interim FVRO protecting herself and the children from the Father.

In September 2023, the Father breached that interim FVRO.

The Father was captured on CCTV stopping his vehicle outside the Mother’s home, and taking photos of the house. He made full admissions in a recorded interview. The Father was convicted of breaching that FVRO, and was fined $300. The interim FVRO was extended by three months by a conduct agreement order in mid 2024.

His Honour referred to the decision of Cohen J delivered N and B & Anor [2024] FCWA 105, wherein Cohen J held that a party’s conviction for breaching a final family violence restraining order fell within the meaning of section 102NA(1)(c)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This case however, referred to a conviction relating to an interim FVRO.

His Honour considered the statutory construction of the term “violence” in Section 219AK(1)(c)(i), and the purpose of the section being to protect victims of family violence from being retraumatised by in-person cross examination, as well as policy considerations.

The Court did not determine whether the conviction for distributing intimate images constituted an act of violence.

Justice Berry found that “…In conjunction with the requirements of s 219AK(1)(a) and s 219AK(1)(b) being uncontroversially met, s 219AK(2) applies to these proceedings by operation of law and there is no discretion to waive the operation of the provision…”

The mandatory cross examination ban was imposed.