A Turning Point for Accountability: What MT v SE Means for False Intervention Orders

Julian Talbot
Dec 10, 2025
3 min read

For years, Australian men facing false or exaggerated allegations under family-violence law have had almost no recourse. Once a complaint is filed, the machine takes over — police issue or pursue an order, courts err on the side of caution, and even when claims collapse, accountability is rare.

That may now be changing.

In February 2025, the South Australian Court of Appeal handed down a quietly revolutionary decision in MT v SE [2025] SASCA 8. The case doesn’t rewrite the law overnight, but it opens the door to something the system has long lacked: civil accountability for those who misuse intervention-order processes.

The Case: When a Complainant Becomes a Prosecutor

In MT v SE, a man alleged that an intervention order had been obtained and pursued maliciously. The technical problem was that the application was brought in the name of police, not by the complainant herself. Traditionally, that fact alone blocks any malicious-prosecution claim — because only the “prosecutor” can be liable, and police are presumed to act independently.

The Court of Appeal looked deeper. It found that if police merely acted as a conduit for the complainant and did not exercise independent judgment, then the complainant can still be treated as the effective prosecutor.

That finding matters. It means the shield of “the police filed it, not me” no longer automatically protects someone who deliberately weaponises the system. If the complainant instigated the process and police simply rubber-stamped it, she can now face a civil claim for malicious prosecution.

What the Court Didn’t Do

The Court did not make any finding that the complainant acted maliciously. It simply ruled that the question deserves to be heard at trial. But that ruling — allowing the claim to proceed — is the breakthrough. It confirms that malicious prosecution can, in principle, apply to family-violence order proceedings if the procedural boxes are ticked.

It also reaffirmed that police must exercise independent discretion before pursuing an order. Doing otherwise risks both legal liability and public confidence.

Why It’s a Landmark Decision

It restores balance. For years, the pendulum has swung so far toward “believe first, test later” that the presumption of innocence effectively disappeared. MT v SE re-introduces the idea that truth and motive still matter.
It pressures police to verify. Officers can no longer rely on complainants’ statements without scrutiny. Independence isn’t optional; it’s the legal firewall between public duty and private misuse.
It creates a deterrent. Knowing that false or reckless allegations could lead to a damages claim will discourage malicious complaints while protecting genuine ones from being discredited by misuse.
It gives victims of false allegations a path — however narrow — to redress. Until now, respondents cleared of allegations had no remedy at all. This decision at least allows one to exist.

Accountability Is Gender-Neutral

Some will frame this as an “anti-woman” ruling. It isn’t. Accountability protects everyone. A justice system that refuses to acknowledge wrongful accusations ends up undermining real victims. Every false claim erodes credibility and diverts scarce police and court resources from people genuinely in danger.

Holding bad-faith complainants to account isn’t misogyny; it’s integrity.

The Road Ahead

The MT v SE appeal doesn’t automatically change outcomes in other states, but it will influence them. Expect to see the decision cited across jurisdictions whenever respondents challenge the misuse of family-violence procedures.

For reform advocates, it strengthens the call for:

mandatory independent police assessment before filing an application;
transparent audit trails showing who actually initiated each case; and
clear consequences — civil or disciplinary — when orders are sought for ulterior motives.

This is the first real sign that courts are beginning to see what men across Australia have been saying for years: the system’s good intentions have been exploited, and justice requires symmetry.