Domestic violence offenders are being treated far more leniently in the state's courts despite growing pressure to have the 'serious epidemic' taken more seriously, according to a landmark analysis of NSW court data.
Perpetrators are less likely to go to prison and, if they do, are more likely to get a shorter sentence. Unsupervised community-based orders, like good behaviour bonds or suspended sentences, are used more often than for non-domestic violence offenders.
However, the study's authors have cautioned that the result may actually be a positive if magistrates are choosing to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders instead of sending them to prison.
The study is the first of its kind and could only be conducted in NSW, the only state to separate offences that are domestic violence-related.
It compared 64,201 local court convictions for domestic and non-domestic personal violence offences including assault, stalking and property damage.
Dr Christine Bond, from Griffith University, said initial results published in the British Journal of Criminology showed a clear leniency in domestic violence-related cases even after adjusting for variables like prior convictions, gender, indigenous status, degree of injury, seriousness of the offence and whether there was a guilty plea or not.
A domestic violence offender was almost half as likely to be sent to prison. The prison sentence was an average 21 days shorter.
Last month, Australian of the Year recipient and domestic violence survivor Rosie Batty said the nation was in the grips of a serious epidemic, an assessment that Michaelia Cash, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women, agreed with.
Yet, despite a significant push from police, government and victims to take domestic violence more seriously, court sentences tell a different story, said Robyn Cotterell-Jones, chief executive of the Victims of Crime Assistance League.
"If courts aren't treating domestic violence as seriously as other crimes, what message does that send?" she said. "There's still a very different attitude, an attitude of 'oh well, people fight, these things happen'. I've seen people get good behaviour bonds for quite savage crimes."
Further findings presented at a NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research conference this week revealed an overwhelming preference for community-based orders for domestic violence offenders.
They are 1.45 times more likely to be given an unsupervised order and 1.8 times more likely to get a minor or nominal punishment.
Dr Bond said it provided some explanation of why fewer offenders were going to prison.
"My suspicion of what might be happening is that there are different sentencing goals for different types of offending. Magistrates, when they have a domestic violence case, are maybe preferring rehabilitation or re-integration kinds of goals."
She said her reasoning was speculative and further research was required.
Dr Bond and co-author Dr Samantha Jeffries discussed research in their initial study that showed judges believe aggravating sentencing factors are different for domestic violence cases.
For example, the risk of harm to the community is perceived as being less because it affects an individual rather than the community at large.
And the 'social costs' of incarceration are often perceived as higher because a victim may lose their breadwinner.
Helen Brereton, executive officer of the Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service, said sentences were inconsistent, giving victims little confidence in the system.
She said breaches of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders were the worst because they were often hard to prove.
The maximum sentence is two years in prison and a $5,500 fine but the most common sentence applied was a good behaviour bond, she said.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brad Hazzard would not comment on sentencing but said the government had introduced major domestic violence reforms including allowing police to use cameras to take evidence from the scene and giving senior officers the power to issue on-the-spot ADVOs.
