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
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll