header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 January 2026 / Jeni Kavanagh , Jessica Mortimer , Oliver Kavanagh
Issue: 8145 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Abuse , Harassment , Family
printer mail-detail

Non-molestation orders: Broken promises

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Firm strengthens growth strategy and group litigation capability with senior hires

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Is inequality undermining trust?
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
NLJ this week: AI privilege battles expose risks
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
NLJ this week: Experts warned—AI use must be transparent
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll