Non-Molestation Breach Conviction Quashed Due to Misdirection

30th August 2016 By Arman Khosravi

Harassment is an unfortunate fact in some relationship breakdowns. In a bid to reduce the incidence of harassment and molestation following splits, the Family Law Act 1996 made it a criminal offence to breach a non-molestation order, rather than a contempt of court. The practical effect of this change was to make such a breach a matter for the police, not one which requires yet another round of court proceedings.

The Act states that any such breach is a criminal offence. However, it dates from ‘pre-Internet’ days and was framed in a time when email and social media were not an established fact of life. An appeal against a conviction for sending distressing emails was heard by the Court of Appeal recently.

The case involved a woman whose stormy relationship with a married solicitor ultimately broke down. They had a daughter who lived with the solicitor after the split. The woman’s behaviour led to a non-molestation order being granted against her. After she sent a number of emails of an unpleasant nature, some of which made allegations about the man’s conduct and sexual preferences, she was convicted of breaching the order.

She appealed, arguing that the judge had misdirected the jury because the emails were intermittent and, whilst admittedly unpleasant, could not be said to be oppressive – a key component, it was argued, for them to constitute harassment. One crucial fact was that there were significant gaps between the emails: they were not continuous or regular.

The judge’s directions to the jury had been very brief and intimated that harassment occurred when the communication would cause harm or distress.

The Court upheld the woman’s case, ruling that for actions to constitute harassment, they have to be oppressive, not just unpleasant. The judge’s instructions did not make that clear. Whilst the Court was by no means sure that the jury would not have convicted the woman had appropriate directions been given, the conviction was unsafe.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...