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 Parliament criminalised breach of NMOs through s
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
