fbpx

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

Court Explores Alleged 'Grave Risk' in Child Abduction Case

28th March, 2024 By

Cross-jurisdictional disputes surrounding child custody can be complex but, in cutting through the complexities, the courts will always focus on the welfare of the children involved, as was evidenced in a High Court case centred on a child abduction. A father wrongfully removed his 5-year-old child from Lithuania during an agreed contact session and took him back to the UK. Prior to this abduction, a series of contested proceedings related to the child's custody had already taken place in the Lithuanian courts. The father had applied to have the child returned...

Tenant Succeeds in Reducing Service Charges

26th March, 2024 By

A case recently decided by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) serves as a reminder to tenants to check the terms of their leases and to monitor the service charges they are asked to pay. The tenant of a ground-floor flat sought a determination of liability to pay service charges under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the 2017-2022 service charge years. He challenged various charges, on grounds that they was no evidence that they had been incurred or that they had not reasonably been incurred. Although...

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts

20th March, 2024 By Arman Khosravi

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts   Between Exchange and Completion (where the property is freehold):- It is generally the responsibility of the seller to take care of the property and to keep it insured against damage. The buyer also has a responsibility to insure the property from the exchange of contracts because of “Risk Passing”. There is no obligation on the seller to maintain buildings insurance once exchange has taken place.  It is therefore very important that buildings insurance for the property is in place before you proceed to exchange...

Court of Appeal Overturns Will Dispute Ruling

20th March, 2024 By

Unfortunately, will disputes can sometimes be drawn out long after the passing of the person who bequeathed their assets. This was so in a contentious probate battle which progressed to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judgment was challenged. The crux of the matter was a 2015 will made by a woman prior to her death at the age of 85. In that will, the woman bequeathed her home – her largest asset – to her only daughter. The daughter and the woman's three sons were to share...