DV: Non- Molestation Order Flashcards
Yemshaw (Supreme Court this year)
- Female partner left male because she was worried he MIGHT be violent (hadn’t yet)
- Under Housing Provision, domestic violence puts you at top of list for provision of housing
- Hounslow Housing Authority said only physical violence counted.
Baroness Hale:
we need broader definition than just ‘physical violence’. DV can be direct or indirect.
Horner v Horner
Molestation is much wider than violence….being a nuisance amounts to molestation.
Vaughan v Vaughan
Pestering can also amount to molestation
Can 3rd parties apply for non-mols?
S60 allows for app for non-mol to be made by a 3rd party – e.g. maybe police or social services on behalf of victims who don’t want to apply themselves. But this has still not been introduced.
LA v DL (2011). J Miles comments on this case saying we need s60 up and running.
State brief facts of this case.
J Miles comments on this case saying we need s60 up and running:
* Mr DL in 50’s still living at home who are 85 (mum) and 90 (dad)
- Social services concerned he is violent towards parents
- Because he’s their son they don’t want to do anything.
- Social worker instigates court application asking for court to use inherent jurisdiction using injunction ordering DL to stop violence
Who cannot apply for a non-mol?
S62(6) : a body ‘corporate’ – this will include a Local Authority and so is saying that a LA cannot apply for a non-molestation order to deal with problem families.
How does the court decide when to grant a non-mol?
S42(5): ‘In deciding whether or not to make non-mol order, court must have regard to all the circumstances, including need to secure health, safety and well-being of applicant or any relevant child’
what section of the act defines health?
s63(1): physical and mental health.
Lau v DPP
Protection from harassment
The fewer the occasions, and the longer the gaps between the terms,the less likely it was a course of conduct.
Lau v DPP
The fewer the occasions, and the longer the gaps between the terms,the less likely it was a course of conduct.
Crawford v DPP
Watching the family home=molestation
R v Jones
The burden of proof to show that the act was not reasonable is on the prosecution.
