Former Test cricketer Stuart MacGill served with AVO

They aren't in a relationship, there isn't a family law dispute, the Police served the AVO and she didn't give any evidence. What point are you trying to make?

I find it very sad that when things like this come up some people assume the worst and feel that the person accused needs to prove their innocence rather than the accuser proving they are guilty. It sets a very dangerous precedence.

It's attitudes like yours that are why people accused of sexual assault need to have their identity protected. Being accused of something does not make you guilty. Lynchings are illegal in Australia.

Agree 100% Vic. But the information we have is that theres an AVO and at the moment no reports of abuse or violence. My girlfriend could break up with me tomorrow and get an AVO just to be on the safe side even though theres no history of violence in our relationship. Like i said before though, if he was actually abusive/violent then i hope he gets whats coming to him. But its hard for us here to actually accuse him of anythimg with the provided information.

Having an AVO against you could also actually mean that you are violent, threatening and abuse others. It's this attitude of judges and lawyers which leaves so many victims unprotected. Sad.

It is also true that when it comes to custody most lawyers accuse the father of domestic violence knowing that courts condone these false accusations and perjury for the mother is never pursued by the judge. The justice system is not just at all.

Wasn't the classy one that drank red wine and what-not?

It shouldn't be reported is the bottom line. He might have done something wrong, he might not have. We should report on him breaking the AVO, if he breaks it, not on him having it.

You're absolutely right. It is a common misconception that having an AVO against you makes you a criminal. Breaking an AVO makes you a criminal. Having an AVO means that someone doesn't like you.

Sorry Adrian, your comment must have come up while i was typing. Thank you for the clarification and insight

Agree with your last point James. Could be legitimate but you can also apply for an AVO if you are "scared that someone may harm you" so she may have applied for one without anything actually happening. Also, I'm no lawyer, but from what I've gathered its just a temporary one until it gets seen to in court so i would imagine that these are just granted until the whole case is heard. If someone is a lawyer or is experienced in these, please correct me if i am wrong.

Provisional AVOs are incredibly common, and they aren't normally reported on, though undoubtedly there was permission given in this case. In spite of what many people think, it is not a criminal charge and does not appear on your criminal record, though, if you break it, then it will appear on your criminal record. Furthermore, while in theory it is meant to be based on a real fear, in reality it can also be based on a perceived fear, and there are countless examples of people using provisional AVOs for manipulative purposes, especially if it involves custody of children. While there are no children involved here, there might well be some other manipulative purpose. An ongoing AVO, that lasts for a year, is one that you need actual proof for. Magilla wouldn't have needed to have hit her (as doing that would mean an actual criminal charge) but maybe he sent her a text message that she says is threatening, or he threw something that she says was aimed at her, or something like that. While there are AVOs where someone is in fear for their life, there are also AVOs where it is done for manipulative purposes. A real story would therefore be if Magilla broke the AVO, and reporting on what he did to break it. There was a swimmer who broke one once when he smashed up his ex girlfriend's house. Grant Hackett? If Magilla did something like that, then there's a story. But if all he's got is a provisional AVO, it's a non-story really and I'd question the merits of it being reported.

It does mean she knows all about these, they'd be fairly common in family law matters. It does also say provisional - Magilla hasn't had the chance to have a say yet. It also says he can't harm her belongings. Maybe he got mad and broke a glass (not a red wine glass though - they're too valuable). is this the PC world we live in today? You can't get mad any more? Haven't I already written that today? I don't mean to sound off hand, it could of course be a very legitimate complaint against him.

100m for that AVO - maybe at the MCG...

What is the distance criteria for the AVO? Is she allowed to field at fine leg while he's bowling?

Well she'd certainly know what works in these kind of cases better than most. Not that it means anything either way, but it's some background information.

We used to joke about how you didn't want to be near him when he took a wicket

Speaking as a lawyer - AVOs are standard operating procedure for the more aggressive practitioners in family law disputes. They are very easy to request and require basically no evidence to obtain (for sound policy reasons). They are too often used as a tool to paint the recipient as a villain and are an abuse of process. Most lawyers ( and judges) with any experience in family law would caution against drawing any adverse conclusions against the character of someone who has been subjected to AVO. I always find it disappointing when I see an AVO on a celebrity being reported - it's often nothing more than legalised defamation. Having said all that, that doesn't necessarily mean that MacGill's former partner has acted in bad faith in this instance.

Is it relevant that she is a family lawyer? Does that mean that she made the whole thing up or exaggerated it? Or is it just so we know who she is?