The nature and extent of cross-intimate partner violence

Aim

This study investigates: (1) long-term trends in cross-intimate partner violence and cross-apprehended domestic violence orders in the NSW justice system; and (2) the context in which cross-intimate partner violence occurs.

Method

This study relies on NSW Police administrative records sourced from the NSW Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS) to examine trends in heterosexual intimate partner violence (IPV) events where both partners were subject to a legal action for a domestic violence (DV) offence by NSW Police (i.e. cross-IPV). To understand court outcomes and offending and victimisation histories, we linked the data to BOCSAR’s Reoffending database (ROD) and Revictimisation database (RVD). We also used data from BOCSAR’s Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) database to explore trends in Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) where men and women in intimate partner relationships were both granted an ADVO against the other person (i.e. cross-ADVOs). Finally, we thematically analysed a sample of NSW Police narratives extracted from COPS relating to 194 cross-IPV events. We investigate the nature of cross-IPV and the prevalence of self-defensive and retaliatory violence between men and women.

Results

Cross-IPV represents a small but growing proportion of police recorded IPV in NSW. NSW Police commenced legal action against both a male and female partner in 0.7% (74) of all IPV events with a legal proceeding in the 12 months to June 2011. This rose to 2.1% (320) in the 12 months to February 2023. Cross-ADVOs have also increased in NSW in recent years. The proportion of ADVOs where men and women in intimate partner relationships were both granted an ADVO increased from 5.7% (933) in the 12 months to December 2016 to 13.7% (3,204) in the 12 months to February 2023. In nearly half the cross-IPV events between 2016 and February 2023, both parties were charged with DV assault (42.6% or 599); other common charges were breach ADVO and malicious damage to property. Women in cross-IPV incidents were slightly more likely to be charged with DV assault than men (64.8% versus 61.4%). Conviction rates were also similar for male and female partners. Prior domestic violence among cross-IPV couples differed by gender with men more often having a greater history of DV convictions than their female partners (18.2% vs. 11.6%), while women more often had a greater number of prior DV victimisation episodes than their male partners (35.2% vs. 11.8%). Despite this, among the 194 cross-IPV police narratives examined, male and female violence presented similarly at the reference incident across a range of measures. In over three-quarters of cross-IPV events both the male and the female partner engaged in aggressive/violent behaviours such as assault or property damage. The experience of physical injury was also similar between men and women. In 22% both parties were injured, in 20% just the male partner was injured and in 21% just the female partner was injured. Violence by both parties was often described as occurring in self-defence or retaliation, although this was slightly more common for women (47% for women compared to 42% for men).

Conclusion

While IPV overwhelmingly involves male offenders and female victims, cross-IPV is a small but rising subset of all reported IPV in NSW. This study did not find clear evidence of gender differences in incident severity or resistant violence in cross-IPV events. However, misidentification is difficult to detect and may still occur in individual cases, warranting further attention and careful response.