Domestic Violence Protection Order Research Articles

Threats, Violence, and Weapon Use Against Children in Domestic Violence Protection Orders.

Childhood exposure to domestic violence is common, but the overlap between threats and violence against children and weapon/firearm use has not been well studied. The objectives of this study were to: assess differences in respondent firearm access and the use of weapons in granted domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) with and without minors (individuals <18 years of age); and characterize the frequency and characteristics of threats and acts of violence against minors. We conducted a cross-sectional study of a random sample of granted DVPOs from 2014-2020 in King County, Washington. We examined the use of threats, violence, and weapons by restrained individuals (ie, respondents) by reviewing and abstracting information from DVPO case files. Respondent weapon use and firearm possession were more common among DVPOs including minors than DVPOs not including minors (weapon use: 38.2% and 33.0%; firearm possession: 23.1% and 19.1%, respectively). Almost 2 in 3 DVPOs including minors (1338 of 2029) involved threats or violence directed at a minor perpetrated by the DVPO respondent. About 1 in 3 (32.5%) DVPOs documented explicit threats, and 1 in 2 (48.9%) documented violence. Over two-thirds (680 of 993, 68.5%) of acts of violence directed at minors included a weapon. We found higher lethality risk (weapon use and respondent firearm access/ownership) among DVPOs including minors. Many minors experienced threats and acts of violence involving weapons and firearms by DVPO respondents. Evidence-based safety planning strategies and training of judicial officers are needed.

Suicide-related behavior and firearm access among perpetrators of domestic violence subject to domestic violence protection orders

Perpetrators of domestic violence (DV) may be a population at elevated risk of suicide. Domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) can include the removal of firearms from the individual subjected to the order (i.e., the respondent) to protect the victim-survivor. While removal of firearms in a DVPO is designed to protect the victim-survivor; it may also prevent suicide of the respondent by reducing access to lethal means. Therefore, we examined the association of respondent suicide-related behaviors with firearm possession and weapon use in DV among a sample of granted DVPO petitions in King County, Washington (WA), United States from 2014 to 2020 (n = 2,537). We compared prevalence ratios (PR) of respondent firearm possession and use of firearms or weapons to threaten or harm by suicide-related behavior. Overall, respondent suicide-related behavior was commonly reported by petitioners (46 %). Approximately 30 % of respondents possessed firearms. This was similar between respondents with and without a history of suicide-related behavior (PR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.91–1.17). Respondents with a history of suicide-related behavior were 1.33 times more likely to have used firearms or weapons to threaten/harm in DV compared to those without a history of suicide-related behavior (44.1 % vs. 33.8 %; 95 % CI: 1.20–1.47). In conclusion, both firearm possession and suicide-related behaviors were common among DVPO respondents. History of suicide-related behavior may be a marker for firearm-related harm to the victim-survivor. Evaluations of DVPO firearm dispossession should consider both firearm-related injury of the victim-survivor and suicide of the respondent.

Does the Federal Law Forbidding People under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders from Possessing Firearms Save Lives?

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments concerning Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) which forbids individuals who are under a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) from possessing firearms. This paper analyzes the potential costs of overturning that law. We estimate a variety of models to determine the effect of the law on domestic murders, domestic femicides, domestic gun murders, and domestic gun femicides. We subject the analysis to a variety of robustness checks. The results are remarkably robust. We find that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) does not significantly reduce domestic murder, domestic femicide, domestic gun murder, or domestic gun femicide.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: THE PERSPECTIVE OF POLICE OFFICERS

Domestic violence is a multifaceted issue within today’s society. Acts of violence perpetrated against individuals constitute a blatant infringement upon human rights. The majority of such instances are directed at women and children. The legal regulation of domestic violence is defined in Lithuanian and international legal acts. However, shortcomings within the legal framework concerning domestic violence hindered the effectiveness of police assistance to victims. It is of utmost significance to highlight that the new Law on Protection from Domestic Violence came into effect on July 1, 2023. This legislation has introduced a novel legal mechanism in the form of a Domestic Violence Protection Order. The legal aspect of domestic violence is examined in the scientific literature; however, it lacks analysis of the personal positions of police officers who are the first to go to the crime scene after receiving a domestic violence call. Thus, the aim of the article is to reveal the peculiarities of legal regulation of domestic violence and empirically investigate the insights from the perspective of police officers. In order to achieve this goal, the analysis of scientific literature and legal acts were used for defining the concept of domestic violence and the peculiarities of legal regulation. A written survey was conducted for the empirical investigation of police officers’ insights about domestic violence; the collected data were processed using quantitative analysis methods. The analysis has shown that domestic violence is understood as all intentional physical, mental, economic, sexual and other actions of the abuser towards the victim, if these actions violate the victim's constitutional rights and freedoms, and cause economic, physical, mental or moral damage to the victim. Police officers must respond immediately to a call of domestic violence and be the first to arrive at the crime scene. The newly adopted 15-day order restraining the abuser from the victim is a very important tool for solving the problems of domestic violence. However, as the experience of foreign countries shows, even after the adoption of appropriate laws to solve this problem, there are psychological and organizational obstacles in providing qualified assistance to victims of domestic violence. After conducting a survey of police officers, it was found that in most cases the reasons of domestic violence are alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment and poverty. Most frequently the age of abusers is between 31-40 years; in most cases violence occurs in families after living together from 1 to 12 years. The victims of violence are mostly women. When preventing domestic violence, first of all, continuous prevention is necessary. Police officers lack psychological and practical knowledge the most when solving these issues. Police officers are not capable of solving these problems alone, the involvement of the prosecutor's office, courts, psychologists, and social workers is also needed here.

Firearm restrictions in domestic violence protection orders: Implementation, vetting, compliance, and enforcement

AbstractResearch SummaryWe quantified the implementation of WA state's domestic violence (DV)‐related firearm prohibitions (RCW9.41.800) by the courts and the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit (RDVFEU), a regional approach to compliance promotion. We measured implementation, vetting, compliance, and enforcement of firearm prohibitions before (2014–2016) and after (2018–2020) the RDVFEU was implemented using a 55% random sample of granted domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) in King County, WA (n = 3543). We evaluated differences in judicial orders to surrender firearms and other dangerous weapons (OTSWs), respondent documented compliance, and respondent weapon and/or firearm relinquishment before and after implementation. Compared to DVPOs granted prior to RDVFEU implementation, granted DVPOs after RDVFEU implementation were at least 4.5 times more likely to include an OTSW. RDVFEU implementation was also associated with at least 3.4 times the odds of respondent documented compliance and at least 3.3 times the odds of respondent relinquishment of at least one firearm and/or other dangerous weapon. These findings demonstrate RDVFEU implementation was associated with benefits at each stage of the protection order process with improvements in both judicial enforcement and respondent compliance. Overall, RDVFEU implementation was associated with improvements in granted orders to surrender weapons, respondent compliance, and relinquishment.Policy ImplicationsDV‐related firearm prohibitions can be supported by interdisciplinary teams within the legal system to promote respondent compliance and enhance safety planning for DV victim–survivors.

Use of immigration status for coercive control in domestic violence protection orders.

In the context of domestic violence (DV), immigration-related circumstances can be exploited by an abuser to coerce and manipulate their partner. Using an intersectional structural framework, we examine how social structures overlaid with immigration-specific experiences operate to further enhance opportunities for abuse against immigrant women. We conducted a textual analysis to identify how socially constructed systems interact with a victim-survivor's immigration status to introduce more tools for abusers to engage in coercive control and/or acts of violence in a random sample of petitioners (i.e., victim-survivors) who were granted a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) in King County, WA (n = 3,579) from 2014-2016 and 2018-2020. We hand-reviewed textual petitioner narratives and identified n = 39 cases that discussed immigration-related circumstances and related acts of violence and coercion. These narratives included threats to contact authorities to interfere with an ongoing immigration process, deportation threats, and threats that would separate families. In many cases, petitioners indicated that immigration-related threats prevented them from leaving the violent partner, seeking help, or reporting the abuse. We also found mention of barriers for victims to receive protection and gain autonomy from further abuse including a lack of familiarity with US protections and laws, and restrictions on authorizations to work. These findings demonstrate that structurally created immigration-specific circumstances provide opportunities for threats and retaliation against victim-survivors by abusers and create barriers to seeking help initially. Policy should respond to anticipate these threats in the immigrant community and engage early responders (e.g., healthcare providers, law enforcement) to support victim-survivors from immigrant communities.

Preventive Justice? Domestic Violence Protection Orders and their Intersections with Family and Other Laws and Legal Systems

Preventive Justice? Domestic Violence Protection Orders and their Intersections with Family and Other Laws and Legal Systems

Longitudinal reflections on the slow and fast crisis of domestic violence during COVID‐19

AbstractThis paper draws on a four‐year qualitative study that examines changes to legal processes related to the response to domestic violence in Seattle that began before and continued through the COVID‐19 pandemic, to examine a series of crisis temporalities that were exacerbated by the pandemic and associated lockdowns. In reflecting on the crisis temporalities that mark this research project, I underscore how such crises can also create conditions that lead to long overdue social change. In this case, the modernisation of a court system that for too‐long served as an obstacle to survivors' legal protection and facilitated abusers' ability to engage in slow violence during Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) hearings. This paper thus highlights the ‘temporal affordances’ of longitudinal research that enable analysis to better understand the factors that motivate transition over time, particularly those in traditional institutions like the legal system.

Police and Duty Lawyer Perceptions of Domestic Violence Protection Order Proceedings Involving Parents: Towards Greater System Accountability and Family-Centred Decision-Making

PurposeDomestic violence (DV) is a problem of global significance and remains a gendered issue that disproportionately affects women and children. Prevalence studies on women’s experiences of DV suggest that around 50% of victims identify as mothers. The effects of DV on mothers and children are well documented, raising implications for their protection. Civil protection orders are a legal tool used to reduce and prevent experiences of DV. Research on protection order effectiveness is mixed with research suggesting that the ongoing relationship between a respondent and aggrieved parent around child contact presents ongoing opportunities for re-victimization. This study contributes to the scant literature on the implications of protection orders on parental responsibilities.MethodThe study draws on surveys with duty lawyers and focus groups with police officers. A thematic analysis was used to examine perceptions and experiences of ‘no contact’ protection orders and respondent parent non-compliance where mutual children are involved.ResultsFindings suggest that ambiguous ‘no contact’ conditions and a lack of clarity around their implications for child contact play a key role in respondent parent non-compliance, ranging from uninformed non-compliance to the strategic use of children as a form of coercive control in non-compliance.ConclusionFindings raise implications for specialist legal advice and support for parents affected by DV to sit alongside protection order court proceedings. Findings highlight the need for greater system accountability to ensure court-issued protection orders take a family-centred approach that align with parental responsibilities and ensure child and adult victims’ safety and wellbeing.

The entanglements of the law, digital technologies and domestic violence in Seattle

This paper draws on a community-based participatory action research project located in Seattle - before and during the COVID-19 pandemic - to examine the unanticipated impact that the pandemic has had on reducing barriers for survivors of domestic violence seeking protection through the legal system. We draw on interviews with survivors and victim advocates, along with autoethnographic participant observation during Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) hearings, to trace survivors’ experiences navigating the DVPO process before and after its transition from an analogue to digital system. We situate this research at the intersection of legal and digital geographic scholarship to analyze how the law and digital technologies reinforce the spatial operation of power and exclusion, while they simultaneously provide emancipatory potential for women’s experiences of security, legal subjectivity and emotional personhood. By focusing on how the courts’ transition to a digital system affects the emotional personhood and legal subjectivity of domestic violence survivors, this paper advances feminist calls within legal and digital geographies scholarship that encourage more sustained engagement with feminist thought to understand the varied effects of the law and digital technologies – respectively – on gendered bodies.

Disarming abusers: Domestic violence protective order (DVPO) firearm restriction processes and dispositions

AbstractResearch summaryWe investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).Policy implicationsProtocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.

Advocacy services for survivors of intimate partner violence: Pivots and lessons learned during the COVID-19 quarantine in Tacoma, Washington.

The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center (CJFJC), like many advocacy programs for survivors of intimate partner violence, transformed its structure and operating procedures amid the COVID‐19 pandemic. The first confirmed case of COVID‐19 in the United States was in Washington State, where CJFJC is located, and Governor Jay Inslee acted quickly with a strict stay‐at‐home order. This paper describes the pre‐pandemic, in‐person service model used at CJFJC and then the transition to a fully online service model utilizing phone, email and online procedures and platforms. The rapid transition posed many opportunities to learn how to provide services during public pandemics, and how to provide services virtually. We conclude with detailed lessons learned from the experiences of filing domestic violence protection orders online, Zoom court hearings, innovation surrounding community partnerships, and information technology development.

Nexus between police attitudes and responses to domestic and family violence in Australia: does training matter?

ABSTRACT Police attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about domestic and family violence (DFV) are crucial for promoting a sense of safety and security for victim-survivors seeking criminal justice support and protection. Using survey data collected from a statewide sample of police officers (N = 243) in one jurisdiction in Australia, this study investigates the influence of police attitudes toward DFV on their decision-making in relation to providing support services, taking proactive actions, and seeking domestic violence protection order (DVO) applications in response to DFV. This study further examines whether the receipt of DFV training as well as confidence in handling aspects of DFV moderate police response to DFV situations. Based on multivariate logistic regression adjusted models, police officers who had proactive attitudes (e.g. pro-arrest attitudes) were more willing to provide support services and take other actions, whereas those who possessed reactive attitudes (e.g. minimum police involvement attitudes) were less likely to seek DVO applications and take other actions. Moreover, both training and confidence in handling aspects of DFV cases had a moderating effect such that the likelihoods of making DVO applications, taking other actions, and providing support services are substantially and significantly higher among officers who have received DFV training and have confidence in handling cases. Police attitudes about DFV appear instrumental in shaping responses to victims and survivors of DFV. These findings reinforce the importance of increasing access to officers’ training for DFV as well as finding opportunities to strengthen officers’ confidence in responding to DFV.

‘Should I Stay or Should I Go Now? If I Go There will be Trouble and if I Stay it will be Double’: An Examination into the Present and Future of Protective Orders Regulating the Family Home in England and Wales

Occupation orders are the dedicated legal remedy through which victims of domestic abuse can be supported to remain in the family home following a relationship breakdown. Case law indicates, however, that victims experience barriers to securing orders due to the high threshold criteria and because concerns about protecting the rights of perpetrators has led to judicial reluctance to grant extensive protection to victims. The options for providing protection to victims of abuse in respect of the family home are shortly set to be reformed by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which creates a new Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO). It is anticipated that DAPOs will be easier to secure because they will have a lower threshold criteria, they will be available in family, civil and criminal proceedings, and both victims and third parties will be able to make an application thereby alleviating the burden on victims who feel unable to take any action. Whilst there is no intention at this point to repeal occupation orders, the Home Office has acknowledged that ‘DAPOs will become the ‘go to’ protective order in cases of domestic abuse’ suggesting that occupation orders will be replaced by DAPOs in most cases. By drawing on data obtained from an analysis of court statistics, a questionnaire of legal practitioners and domestic abuse specialists, and in-depth interviews with victims of domestic abuse, this paper offers original empirical insights into where the current law fails victims of domestic abuse. The analysis reveals three key barriers to securing occupation orders. Firstly, despite the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 making efforts to preserve legal aid for victims of domestic abuse, the means test is difficult for victims to satisfy, resulting in increases both to the number of victims taking no action to pursue protection and who act as litigants in person in occupation order proceedings. Secondly, the prospects of a victim securing protection can be adversely affected by their unrepresented status. Thirdly, despite case law indicating a less restrictive approach to granting occupation orders, many victims continue to struggle to satisfy the strict threshold criteria. Some judges are seemingly willing to bypass this by granting alternative remedies which may offer victims a weaker form of protection in respect of the family home. Where orders are granted, the data suggest this is on restricted terms and for limited durations which reduce their effectiveness at preventing post-separation abuse and supporting victims to regulate their short and longer-term housing situation. These empirical findings are then situated within a discussion of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The authors analyse whether forthcoming DAPOs are likely to offer a more accessible and effective form of protection than occupation orders. The analysis suggests that by increasing the scope of applicants, the breadth and flexibility of available protection and the sanctions for breach, DAPOs have the potential to remedy many of the existing barriers to securing protection over the family home. As is always the case with new legislation however, the key will be in its implementation, to ensure that existing issues are not simply transferred across to the new regime. The findings are novel because academic commentaries on protective injunctions typically focus on ‘personal protection’ offered by non-molestation orders, domestic violence protection orders, and restraining orders, meaning that both occupation orders and protection for victims in respect of the family home are under-researched areas of domestic abuse.

Increasing compliance with domestic violence protection orders: investing in perpetrator education and support as an investment in victim and family safety

ABSTRACT Domestic Violence (DV) is a persistent public health issue of global proportions affecting an estimated one in four women worldwide. Civil protection orders or domestic violence orders (DVO) are a legal tool used in many jurisdictions, including Australia, to hold the alleged perpetrators accountable and improve the safety of victims. However, the research on the effectiveness of these orders are mixed and perpetrator non-compliance with such orders continues to be a concern. Few studies examine the situational factors that impact compliance with orders, especially in relation to service engagement and support needs of perpetrators of DV during and beyond the protection order court process. Our study uses focus group data to explore the perceptions of police officers (n = 16) and prosecutors (n = 3) involved in policing and prosecuting DV and the compliance with relevant protection orders in two court districts in Queensland, Australia. Alleged perpetrators’ comprehension of their order conditions and intersecting experiences of social disadvantage and complex needs emerged as key factors influencing compliance, along with the role of timely engagement with alleged perpetrators during the court process to maximise respondent comprehension of order conditions and engagement with available and relevant support services. In concluding, we highlight the importance of protective and preventive aspects of the DVO process that combine holistic wraparound support with perpetrator accountability in order to maximise perpetrator compliance and thus victim and family safety.

A Mixed-Method Approach to Understand Themes of Love in Victims' Dismissals of Civil Protection Orders.

Domestic violence protective orders are the most widely used intimate partner violence-related legal intervention in the United States, yet many victims later ask to have these orders dismissed. This article uses a mixed-methods approach to examine the conditions that help explain why victims of intimate partner violence dismiss their protection orders. Quantitative findings from 841 civil protection order cases show that victims who need protection the most are the most likely to seek dismissals. Victims who experienced recent or physical abuse were significantly more likely to dismiss their protection orders. Qualitative findings from 200 dismissal requests reveal that victims reference common themes of loving the abuser, that the abuser is a good parent, that the abuser is seeking treatment, or that they desire to save the relationship. Victims draw from broad romantic rationalizations when describing their decision to drop a protection order from the court. Building upon insights from constructs of romantic love, this study highlights how the rationalizations victims invoke in their dismissal requests are also associated with their experiences of abuse. A mixed methodological approach reveals a significant contrast between the language in victims' petitions and their dismissal requests. Victims voiced fear and violence in their petitions for protection orders, then employed meanings of romantic love, reconciliation, and change when requesting that these temporary protection orders be dropped. This contrast reflects the cyclical nature of abuse and suggests that greater attention must be paid to ensuring court officials have a strong understanding of the complexities of victim attrition.

Pragmatic Punitiveness: The Institutionalization of Criminal Domestic Violence Protection Orders

This paper analyzes the implementation of a domestic violence law in Minnesota that, in 2006, made the violation of a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order a felony-level offense. Since this legal change, the rate of conviction for Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order felonies skyrocketed with stark racial disparities among Black and Native American residents, relative to Whites. Analysis of case files reveals that Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order convictions result from a range of behaviors, from seemingly mutual contact between the defendant and protected party to serious physical violence. We argue that the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law facilitates pragmatic punitiveness for legal actors. It is easier for prosecutors to demonstrate contact occurred than to prove domestic assault. Yet, the penalty for a Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order is as severe as the penalties for other domestic abuse-related crimes in Minnesota. Thus, the Domestic Abuse No-Contact Order law enables prosecutors to respond forcefully to domestic violence while avoiding additional burdens on their time and resources.

Armed, Prohibited and Violent at Home: Implementation and Enforcement of Restrictions on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Offenders in Four U.S. Localities

Firearms increase the risk of lethality in violent intimate relationships. Policies that restrict access to firearms by respondents to civil domestic violence protective orders (DVROs) are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, yet there is scant literature about how such prohibitions are implemented. We document how four localities are implementing gun possession prohibitions that result from civil and criminal restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; and assess the findings in the context of Kingdon’s agenda setting framework. We identified four jurisdictions where gun dispossession of prohibited domestic violence offenders was underway and collected data through in-depth interviews, site visits, and documents. We coded the data, identified explanatory themes, and compared the findings to Kingdon’s framework. The four jurisdictions have policies ranging from no state laws restricting domestic violence offenders’ access to guns to comprehensive state laws. We describe implementation initiatives to dispossess prohibited people of their guns in the four jurisdictions, two distinct implementation models through which gun dispossession occurs, and an expanded application of Kingdon’s model. In each jurisdiction, we identified one or more individuals who championed implementation. Policies that prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing guns are promising, and possible in diverse settings and jurisdictions. Here we provide insight into implementation efforts in four jurisdictions, emphasize the role of individuals in prioritizing implementation, and highlight the potential to realize these restrictions across states with different laws. Focusing on implementation is a much-needed paradigm shift that complements the traditional focus on passing domestic violence prevention laws.

A critical reflection on the use and effectiveness of DVPNs and DVPOs

ABSTRACT Domestic Violence Protection Notices (DVPNs) and Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) are short-term police-initiated protection mechanisms, aimed at providing victims with time to plan longer-term strategies to escape abusive relationships. Despite being available in England and Wales since 2014, there is relatively little research regarding their use and effectiveness. This article fills this knowledge gap by providing an empirically based ‘snapshot’ of their use by London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and considers whether they can be deemed successful in their intended outcomes. It does so against the national and international legal context in which the orders were created and the practices and policies used to deploy them (including: management of risk, protection of human rights and combating violence and abuse against women). It also considers the implications of their replacement with Domestic Abuse Protection Notices (DAPNs) and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), as foreseen by the new Domestic Abuse Bill.

"If It Hadn't Been Online I Don't Think I Would Have Applied": Applicant Experiences of an Online Family Violence Intervention Order Process.

Domestic violence protection orders are civil court orders intended to protect victim/survivors from further violence by prohibiting alleged perpetrators from engaging in threatened or actual violence or harassment of victim/survivors and their children. However, their availability and ultimately their effectiveness is limited by complex procedural requirements and court accessibility barriers that victim/survivors can find intimidating, confusing, and unsafe, and that contribute to delays between lodgment of an application and the making of an intervention order by the court. This study examined the experiences of applicants who used either a conventional court process or an online application process that was trialed in three courts in Victoria, Australia. We examined court data on 791 applicants who sought an intervention order at the three courts during the study period, and interviewed 28 applicants including 12 who had applied online. We also examined the impact of the online process on court workloads and risk assessments, and conducted interviews and focus groups with magistrates and registry staff at each of the three trial locations. Compared with the court registry process, the online application was rated as simpler and easier to understand and less stressful. Online applicants also reported that the application process was more accessible and enhanced their sense of agency. The online application process also reduced the workload of court staff and resulted in faster case processing, with online applicants reaching the court hearing stage nearly 2 weeks earlier than paper-based applicants. However, we did not find that the online application process provided earlier or better risk identification.