Non-molestation orders Flashcards
Who can an non-molestation order be sought by against who?
S 42(2)(a) allows a person who is associated with R
Who is an associated person
S 62(3) defines associated person
Which section allows an order to be made for a roc
S 42(2)
What happened in G v F
couple both had their own flats but lived together as a couple. Are the cohabitants as to make them associated? If they believed they were. The purpose of the FLA is to provide a swift and effective remedy, therefore, a purposive approach should be adopted.
Cohabitants can be associated- where is this defined
S 62(1)(a)
Is there a requirement of living together as CP to have a sexual r/ship?
CPA creates a status virtually identical to that of marriage. But CP is not voidable on non-consummation S.50 and cannot be dissolved on the basis of adultery S.44. However, where there is ambiguity the Courts can consult Hansard (Pepper v Hart) and it appears to be clear from Parliamentary debate that CP was designed to include and intimate relationship.
What is the purpose of a non-molestation order
To prevent the re(occurrence) of violence or other intimidation.
When will molestation always be found
in cases of violence
What happened in Vaughan v Vaughan
husband could not accept breakdown of the relationship and stalked his former wife. He was a nuisance rather than a threat but this counted as molestation.
What happened in Horner v Horner
made defamatory comments and published them where she worked and telephoned her place of work with and threatened violence, this was held to be molestation
What happened in C v C
Published press articles to seek to embarrass. This did not amount to molestation, he should have looked to seek an injunction- family law protection was not suitable in this situation
What happened in Johnson v Walton
Injunction granted, which was breached by providing topless pictures to a newspaper. This was molesation
What happened in Re T
In Re T, a non-molestation order was granted to protect a child in Local Authority care from her mother and step-father. The mother had made numerous attempts to contact her daughter and abduct her from her foster-parents. She attempted to pass her notes saying things like: “You only have one Mammy, I will have you back and it won’t be long now”. The child was unaware of these attempts and the mother probably did not intend her behaviour to harm her. However, because of the foster-parents’ fear of abduction, the child was leading a very restricted life-style. Two foster placements had already broken down and her current placement was being destabilised.
What was decided in Re T
clarified that molestation does not have a mens rea element.
Why does molestation not require MR
As the jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1996 aims to protect the victim rather than punish the perpetrator, a non-molestation order can be granted even though the respondent did not intend to cause harm. The CA has also confirmed that there need not be any direct interaction between respondent and applicant for a non-molestation order to be granted.
