A new law which enables police to remove potentially dangerous offenders from their homes has been used at least seven times in Otago and Southland in its first month.
Since July 1, police have been able to remove the primary aggressor from a home when there is not enough evidence to make an arrest.
Police could remove a person from their home if officers had a gut instinct that if they walked away the situation would worsen or they would be called back, said Southern police district family violence co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Kelvin Lloyd.
Two safety orders had been issued in Dunedin, three in the greater Gore area and two in Invercargill.
Even where there was no evidence of a crime, the law could be used to immediately remove a person who police suspected could be a danger.
Nationally, police have issued at least 240 safety orders since July 1.
Snr Sgt Lloyd said the Southern district's figures seemed quite low, but he expected safety orders would be used more once officers were more familiar with how they worked and the situations in which they could be used.
He was happy the seven orders issued were done so appropriately, and so far there had been no breaches of the order, although he expected breaches would happen as more orders were issued.
If safety orders are breached, the courts can direct police to issue another safety order or a temporary protection order.
The orders can bar potentially violent people from properties for up to five days if they are a danger to others living there.
Only one five-day order was issued, to a boarder whose behaviour had concerned his Dunedin flatmate, the rest were two-day orders for the more "normal familial situations" police found themselves dealing with in regards to family violence.
The time is to give other agencies, such as health authorities or social agencies like Women's Refuge, time to assist partners or potential victims.
Police made sure there was enough time for that to happen and could extend the length of the order, Snr Sgt Lloyd said.
Police did not need the permission of the victim to serve a safety order, but had not yet had a negative response from the parties they were protecting, with all so far accepting the order needed to be served.
At the introduction of the system, social agencies expressed concern that there might not be enough resources given to them to cope with the influx in work the orders might result in.
A Dunedin women's refuge spokesperson said, from their perspective, there had not been enough incidences of safety orders being served to really know how well the system worked yet.
