Non-compliance . It was noted that there appeared to be a disincentive by police officers to record incidents of domestic violence, abuse or rape, as this would negatively affect their target of reducing contact crimes between 7 - 10% annually. Hence, incidents of rape were often reported as a common assault or turned away, with the same practice being adopted in abuse cases. . Firearms were not always confiscated after being used to threaten victims and the license of the alleged perpetrator suspended. . The safety of persons who had obtained protection orders were being compromised by some police officials' unwillingness to arrest perpetrators who violated the protection order. . The behaviour of police officials dealing with victims of domestic violence were reported as being demeaning and discriminatory. Police officials discouraged women from taking action. Police officers also often did not inform victims about accessing a protection order or laying a criminal charge. Submissions by individuals working on farms indicated that particularly in the case of farm workers, police responded by saying that they were 'drunk' farm women and did not attend to their cases. Numerous incidents were reported citing the appalling attitude of police officials who often subject victims to secondary abuse. . Numerous concerns arose regarding protection orders as it relates to ensuring the safety of persons requesting protection orders, the reluctance and often refusal of police officers to serve the order, or to arrest the perpetrator who has violated the protection order. . It was also highlighted that risk assessment needs to be prioritised, so as to make victim safety a priority. This becomes especially important when victims are told to return the next day, resulting in cases where women did not return to file charges.