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

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll