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

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...