• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Domestic abuse orders: worth the paper they’re written on?

The BBC recently reported on Police failings to enforce court orders to protect victims of domestic abuse.“Court orders to protect domestic violence victims from their attackers are "not worth the paper they're written on", the BBC has been told.”

A wide range of orders can be used in domestic abuse situations.  

The protection offered by these different orders varies vastly: including in the time taken for an order to take effect; the application process; the duration of protection; the financial cost to the victim and the consequences of breach. This means the law can be difficult to understand for those suffering from abuse, who may lack the knowledge, understanding and/or resources to seek protection.

Broadly speaking, Criminal Courts offer the following protection:

  • Domestic violence protection notices (DVPN): can be issued by the Police to provide emergency protection in the immediate aftermath of a domestic abuse incident.  Then, within 48 hours:
  • Domestic violence protection orders (DVPO): must be considered by the Magistrates’ Court to offer protection for a period of 28 days.
  • Bail conditions: can provide protection pre-charge and if/when an offender is charged with a criminal offence.
  • Restraining orders: can be granted on conviction or acquittal.

Family Courts offer two main injunctions to protect domestic abuse victims:

  • Non-molestation orders: protect the victim (and relevant children) from “molestation” – which can include violence, harassment and threats.
  • Occupation orders: allow courts to decide who should and should not occupy a home – and can force the offender to leave.

Terms of all these orders tend to include restrictions preventing offenders from using or threatening violence against victims, contacting certain people (such as victims or their families) or from entering or getting too close to certain places (such as victims’ homes or workplaces).

Offenders can be arrested for breach of a DVPN or DVPO – but it is a civil (rather than criminal) offence. Breach of a non-molestation order or an occupation order is a criminal offence, as well as contempt of court. 

These protections are being used. Statistics show that the orders are being made: the government reports that in the year ending March 2020, 4,468 DVPNs were issued and 6,267 DVPOs were granted; and in the year ending December 2020, 36,952 non-molestation orders were made (an increase of 89% over the past nine years).

So if protective orders are being made, what is going wrong?  

A big issue seems to be in enforcing the orders, once breached. The BBC reports that in recent years there was a year-on-year drop in prosecutions, convictions and sentences for breach of restraining orders; in a period where the number of non-molestation orders granted rose by 48%, convictions for breach fell by 7%; and about a quarter of DVPOs issued were breached.

Failing to strictly enforce orders detracts from their protective nature: offenders realise they can breach orders without facing repercussions, and victims lose confidence in the system that should protect them. In enforcing orders, the Police are reliant not only on breaches being reported, but also other agencies such as the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service, the courts and charities.

Family Courts can offer protection in addition to or in the absence of criminal proceedings. If Police fail to prosecute offenders for breaching a non-molestation order and/or an occupation order, there is a civil remedy in contempt of court allowing victims to apply for offenders to be imprisoned. However, the system with different enforcement mechanisms for different orders is complicated and public funding is limited.

Is anything going to change?

The government recognises concerns about the limitations of current protective measures. A two-year pilot scheme is set to be introduced this year. A new civil Domestic Abuse Protection Notice (DAPN) will allow the Police to provide immediate protection following a domestic abuse incident (instead of the current DVPN). A new civil Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) will provide flexible, longer-term protection for victims (instead of the current DVPO). 

Magistrates Courts will have the power to make DAPOs following applications from Police – but there will be alternative routes to obtain DAPOs too. Victims and specified third parties will be able to apply directly to Family Courts for DAPOs. Family, Criminal and Civil Courts will be permitted to make DAPOs of their own volition during existing court proceedings.

DAPOs will be much wider in scope than DVPNs – they will be able to impose positive requirements, not just restrictions. These might include requiring offenders to attend a behavioural change programme, an alcohol or substance misuse programme or a mental health assessment. Notification requirements and the use of electronic monitoring or tagging will ensure compliance can be more strictly monitored.

Breach of a DAPO will be a criminal offence (carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both) as well as contempt of court. Victims’ views and the public interest will be considered in deciding the appropriate sanction for breach.

No one can fail to be moved by the BBC’s examples of women failed by the current protective orders. These proposals are a welcome improvement, and the pilot study will be observed keenly by many.

Court orders to protect domestic violence victims from their attackers are "not worth the paper they're written on", the BBC has been told.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2025

    Simon Ridpath

    Events

  • Next Gen Rural Professionals Drinks Reception

    Events

  • Retail Collection – Episode 4: Caffé Nero – lessons from a life in retail management

    Michael Powner

    Podcasts

  • Beyond Gateway 2

    Mark Barley

    Insights

  • Dubai chocolate craze and related allergen concerns in the workplace

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • HR Magazine quotes Jamie Cartwright on the Dubai chocolate craze and related allergen concerns in the workplace

    Jamie Cartwright

    In the Press

  • Business Assets in an English Divorce – How Can Parties Protect their Interests?

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Triple Play "Bid Fever": UK Tech's ability to scale and go global

    Mark Howard

    Quick Reads

  • A Family Lawyer’s guide to five of the top most Googled Family Law questions in England and Wales relating to divorce/separation

    Hannah Owen

    Quick Reads

  • The Future of AI and Copyright Regulation in the UK: The Data (Use and Access) Bill finally gets Lords approval in the UK

    Rebecca Steer

    Quick Reads

  • HM Land Registry's Digital Drive - Delays Persist but perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel?

    Maisy-Jane Cook

    Quick Reads

  • Key aspects of the FCA’s PISCES Sourcebook

    Jodie Dennis

    Insights

  • Mike Barrington and Mary Perham write for Tax Adviser on what the proposed changes to business property relief mean for investors and entrepreneurs, and for their businesses

    Mike Barrington

    In the Press

  • Bloomberg quotes Catrin Harrison on the recent exodus of non-doms from the UK

    Catrin Harrison

    In the Press

  • Trusts and Matrimonial Disputes in England

    Tom Watts

    Insights

  • The Financial Times and Daily Mail quote Emma Humphreys on the impact of the UK Government's Spending Review on housebuilding targets

    Emma Humphreys

    In the Press

  • Alumni Drinks Reception

    Events

  • Consultation on Private International Law and Digital Assets Law Commission Proposes Landmark Reforms

    Racheal Muldoon

    Insights

  • Cross-border clarity: the rise of the international prenup

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Quick Reads

Back to top