header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Non-molestation orders: Broken promises

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
16 January 2026 / Jeni Kavanagh , Jessica Mortimer , Oliver Kavanagh
Issue: 8145 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Abuse , Harassment , Family
printer mail-detail
240106

Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer & Oliver Kavanagh on why there is a mismatch between the protection promised by non-molestation orders & what is enforced as a breach
  • There is a persistent enforcement gap between the protection non-molestation orders (NMOs) promise and the criminal courts’ approach to breach.
  • The criminal test for breach of a prohibition to ‘harass’ a victim under an NMO is drawn from the jurisprudence on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
  • Judicial or legislative recalibration is needed to bring the test for breach back into line with Parliament’s intention.

Non-molestation orders (NMOs) continue to be the most frequently used protective tool in domestic abuse cases. In the first quarter of 2025, 9,374 domestic violence remedy orders were made by the family court, 94% of which were NMOs; demand has almost doubled since 2011 (Ministry of Justice, 2025). The purpose of NMOs is preventative: they are intended to restrict behaviours before they escalate to the point of criminality or serious harm.

When

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll