Domestic Abuse Flashcards
Horner v Horner 1982
Ex-wife repeatedly phoned the school her ex-husband was the headteacher of and put posters up so a non-molestation order was granted as her actions counted as pestering and harassment.
Spencer v Camacho 1984
Partner repeatedly rifled through her handbag. Non-mol said never to go through the handbag again, it was very specific.
G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) 2000
First approach to defining ‘associated persons’ who can apply for a non-mol.
Magistrates heard an application for a non-mol order, on the grounds that W and M lived in separate households and so under FLA 1996 were associated persons = cohabitants for purpose of FLA.
Courts approach to defining ‘associated persons’. The couple still held a joint bank account, were sexual and spent nights together.
Harassment
‘Alarm the person or cause distress’ PHA 1997 s.7(2)
‘Course of conduct’ PHA 1997 s.7(3)
Hipgrave v Jones 2005
Question of what standard of proof should be used when determining whether conduct amounts to harassment. Interpreted in ordinary senses. Civil standard of balance of probabilities.
King v DPP 2001
Offering a plant, sending a letter, and delivering a parcel to C were not capable of constituting a course of conduct amounting to harassment.
Lau v DPP 2000
Does time between the incidents make a difference? 4 month gap between the incidents, and this meant they could not be viewed as a course of conduct, therefore it was not enough to constitute harassment.
Majrowski v Guys & Thomas’ NHS Trust
Conduct has to be calculated in an objective sense to be oppressive and unreasonable conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment.
Nwogbe and Nwogbe 2000
Occupation Order
S.40, obligations to pay rent/mortgage may be included in an occupation order, but in practice this is a toothless provision as no method of enforcement.
B v B 1999
The court must make an occupation order if the balance of harm test is satisfied. In this case, an occupation order was overturned for the son’s wellbeing.
Son of the abusive husband so the husband was not forced out of home.
Chalmers v Johns 1999
Significant harm is considerable, noteworthy or substantial.
Domestic abuse was very slight so it did not fall under the balance of harm test.
Grubb v Grubb 2009
Softening of the courts’ approach to occupation orders.
Husband attempted to appeal the occupation order, but was refused. He had purposely not provided himself with an alternative accommodation.
Dolan v Corby 2011
An appeal against an occupation order was refused. He had more money than the respondent, and she was more vulnerable, and was suffering from a psychiatric condition.
L (Children) 2012
Husband’s appeal against an occupation order was dismissed.
Although there was no recent violence, the court found that the children were likely to suffer significant harm if the parties did not separate.
S v F (Occupation Order)
An occupation order was made despite the absence of any physical violence.
Although was used in a positive, not in a negative way as it permitted the father to move into the former matrimonial home to provide home for son.
