On July 14 Windsor Police took out a Interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) against former Mayor Sarah McMahon, four months later without explaination they withdrew the order originally placed to protect her ex-boyfriend Matthew Bennett.

The failure by Windsor Police to inform Bennett about the withdrawal of the ADVO represents a troubling lapse in duty of care. While the reasons for the ADVO’s withdrawal remain unclear, the lack of communication with Bennett raises serious concerns about the handling of domestic violence cases and whether alleged victims are adequately protected.

As the protected party under the interim ADVO, Bennett was left to discover its withdrawal not through the authorities responsible for his safety but via friends and media reports. This is not a mere oversight; it is a fundamental failure. When an ADVO is withdrawn, notifying the person it was meant to protect should be an absolute priority. Failing to do so is more than neglectful; it undermines the entire purpose of such orders and even worse could present a serious risk to the protected person. Unfortunately, this failure by Windsor Police is far from isolated. According to lawyers and domestic violence workers spoken to by the Hawkesbury Post, it is an all too common scenario.

The silence from NSW Police on this matter is notable. NSW Police wouldn’t answer questions from the Hawkesbury Post citing a “no comment” on matters relating to domestic violence. Why was the ADVO withdrawn? Why wasn’t Bennett notified of its withdrawal? Even if there are valid reasons behind these actions, maintaining public trust requires a certain level of transparency. Without it, speculation is inevitable - and ultimately, damaging.

Compounding the issue, McMahon’s public comments (posted to her official Facebook account on 21 November 2024) about a "weaponised" domestic violence system add another layer of complexity. Her remarks, intentional or not, risk undermining the credibility of those who come forward with genuine complaints and further highlight the questionable handling of this matter by the police.

It is impossible to ignore the question of whether this outcome might have been different if the alleged victim were a woman. Domestic violence transcends gender, yet male victims often faceless attention and empathy. Bennett’s experience underscores systemic biases that must be addressed, regardless of the specifics of this case.

As Australia grapples with a domestic violence epidemic, police procedures must prioritise the protection of alleged victims. By failing to inform Bennett, the police have not only let him down but also jeopardised trust in a system meant to safeguard vulnerable individuals.

Transparency and accountability are the foundations of public trust in policing. Without them, the credibility of the entire system is undermined. Windsor police owe Bennett, and the community, answers. Until then, public confidence in the system will again be tested.