Legal aid and Convention rights in domestic violence committal proceedings

20170407_185106

Non-molestation orders and conviction for breach

 

Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4 is the direct descendant of Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which enabled courts, for the first time, to exclude married parties from their homes; and it applied to unmarried parties as if they were married to one another (Davis v Johnson [1978] UKHL 1, [1979] AC 264). The legislation was recast in 1995 (then abandoned) but reintroduced the following year as Pt 4 of Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). This included s 42 non-molestation orders ‘NMO’): where a complainant spouse or partner (A, mostly women) could ask the court to make B (their partner or spouse) the subject of an order. Non-molestation orders (FLA 1996 s 42) and the way they are dealt with by the courts – especially in terms of legal representation and legal aid – is the subject of this article

 

FLA 1996 s 42, as relevant, reads

 

42 Non-molestation orders

(1)   In this Part a ‘non-molestation order’ means an order containing either or both of the following provisions –

(a)provision prohibiting a person (‘the respondent’ [(B)]) from molesting another person [(A)] who is associated with the respondent;

(b)provision prohibiting [B] from molesting a relevant child [(C)].

(2) The court may make a non-molestation order –

(a)if an application for the order has been made (whether in other family proceedings or without any other family proceedings being instituted) by [A] with [B]; or

(b)if in any family proceedings to which the respondent is a party the court considers that the order should be made for the benefit of any other party to the proceedings or [C] even though no such application has been made.

 

Offence for breach of non-molestation order

 

Formerly, if there was evidence of violence the court must then attach a power of arrest and send a copy of the order to the local police station for the police to deal with if there was complaint as to alleged breach by B of the order. In 2004 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act introduced (by s 1) a new FLA 1996 s 42A which made it a criminal offence, with effect from 1 July 2007, for B to breach a NMO:

 

42A Offence of breaching non-molestation order

(1)   A person [ie B] who without reasonable excuse does anything that he is prohibited from doing by a non-molestation order is guilty of an offence….

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable –

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both….

 

Alleged breaches of a NMO can result in an arrest, and – if the breach is proved – can result in punishment including imprisonment. That all looks relatively straightforward. It gets away from the unresolved problem, under the earlier scheme, of who was responsible for bringing B to court: the police or A herself. In clear terms it makes application under s 42A a matter for the police and CPS. The section also states that if a person has already been punished for contempt of court in civil proceedings, they cannot be convicted also (s 42A(3) and (4)).

 

Conviction on a substratum of findings to a civil standard of proof

 

Straightforward it may appear; but it may leave a real injustice for B. In civil proceedings, though A may have legal aid (Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Sch 11-13, subject to A’s means) it is most unlikely that B will have legal aid.  B will therefore not have legal aid when the NMO is made. The NMO will be made on the basis of evidence proved to the civil standard – ‘balance of probabilities’.

 

If B is to be sent to prison – whether under a civil proceedings contempt application by A or as part of a police prosecution under s 42A – the standard of proof will be the criminal standard. But the conviction under s 42A will be based on a sub-stratum of findings of fact which have been established to a less exacting standard of proof. This lower standard of proof test at an earlier stage in financial relief proceedings, but which lead to judgment summons – ie committal proceedings – for alleged wilful failure to pay by Mr Prest – was considered by the Court of Appeal in Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA Civ 714 sub nom Prest v Prest (Judgment Summons: Appeal) [2016] 1 FLR 773.

 

McFarlane LJ considered earlier decisions of respectively of Mostyn J in Bhura v Bhura [2013] EWHC 3633 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 44 and of Thorpe LJ in the Court of Appeal in Mohan v Mohan [2013] EWCA Civ 586, [2014] 1 FLR 717. McFarlane LJ expressed ‘caution’ in dealing with findings made in earlier proceedings to a lower standard of proof:

 

[55]   The collective professional experience of Thorpe LJ and Mostyn J in these matters makes me most hesitant to express a contrary view, but my reason for advising caution concerning this set of observations is that they each suggest that, in the course of the criminal process that is the hearing of a judgment summons, it is simply sufficient to rely upon findings as to wealth made on the civil standard of proof in the original proceedings and that those findings, coupled with proof of non-payment, is sufficient to establish a ‘burden’ on the respondent which can only be discharged if he or she enters the witness box and proffers a credible explanation.

 

The court must be live to the fact that the later s 42A criminal proceedings may result in criminal penalties, even imprisonment. McFarlane LJ therefor set out minimum procedural requirements for this to be dealt with ((a) and (b) are the requirements for the judgment summons; in the case of non-molestation order the breaches of the order and perhaps relevant examples of the earlier allegations must be proved). McFarlane LJ therefore continued:

 

[55] … The facts of each case will differ, and the aim of Thorpe LJ and Mostyn J in envisaging a process which is straightforward and not onerous to the applicant is laudable, but at the end of the day this is a process which may result in the respondent serving a term of imprisonment and the court must be clear as to the following requirements, namely that:

(a)the fact that the respondent has or has had, since the date of the order or judgment, the means to pay the sum due must be proved to the criminal standard of proof;

(b)the fact that the respondent has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay the sum due must also be proved to the criminal standard;

(c)the burden of proof is at all times on the applicant; and

(d)the respondent cannot be compelled to give evidence.

 

 

The dilemma of legal assistance was addressed by the Court of Appeal in relation to family law committal proceedings where breach of a civil order (committal under Debtors Act 1869 s 5 (judgment summons procedure)) was before the court in Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698. They considered an application for committal of Mr Mubarak (ie in the position of B) by the procedure which applied before Human Rights Act 1998. His counsel had argued, said Thorpe LJ:

 

[29] … that the judge did not sufficiently appreciate that in terms of Convention law, an application under the Debtors Act 1869 constituted a criminal proceeding. The judge went no further than to label it as a ‘hybrid’ proceeding. Mr Howard particularly relies on the decision in the case of Engel and Others v The Netherlands (No 1) (1979) 1 EHRR 647, which at 677, paras 80 and 81 very clearly classifies proceedings such as applications under the Debtors Act 1869 as criminal proceedings for Convention purposes.

 

The court agreed with Mr Mubarak. He should have the rights guaranteed by European Convention 1950 Art 6.3 which, for present purposes, is as follows:

 

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights –

(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;…

(c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;…

 

Engels v Netherlands: ‘legal assistance of his choosing’

 

Engel and Others v The Netherlands (No 1) (1976) 1 EHRR 647, at 677 paras 80 and 81 re European Convention 1950 Art 6(3)(c) concerned a case of military discipline and how it was dealt with in the Dutch Army. The criterion for deciding whether a man was subject to criminal proceedings, depended on the severity of the punishment. This was explained in each case as follows:

 

[85] The maximum penalty that the Supreme Military Court could pronounce consisted [of] three or four months’ committal to a disciplinary unit for Mr. de Wit, Mr. Dona and Mr. Schul…. The “charges” against Mr. de Wit, Mr. Dona and Mr. Schul did indeed come within the “criminal” sphere since their aim was the imposition of serious punishments involving deprivation of liberty…. The Supreme Military Court no doubt sentenced Mr. de Wit to twelve days’ aggravated arrest only, that is to say, to a penalty not occasioning deprivation of liberty (paragraph 62 above), but the final outcome of the appeal cannot diminish the importance of what was initially at stake. The Convention certainly did not compel the competent authorities to prosecute Mr. de Wit, Mr. Dona and Mr. Schul under the Military Penal Code before a court martial (paragraph 14 above), a solution which could have proved less advantageous for the applicants. The Convention did however oblige the authorities to afford them the guarantees of Article 6 (art. 6).

(b) On the existence of a “determination” of “civil rights”

[87] Article 6 (art. 6) proves less exacting for the determination of such rights than for the determination of “criminal charges”; for, while paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) applies to both matters, paragraphs 2 and 3 (art. 6-2, art. 6-3) protect only persons “charged with a criminal offence”. Since Mr. Dona and Mr. Schul were the subject of “criminal charges” (paragraph 85 in fine above), Article 6 (art. 6) applied to them in its entirety. The Court considers it superfluous to see whether paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) was relevant on a second ground, since the question is devoid of any practical interest (emphasis added).

 

As can be seen from the italicised passage, the punishment available to the court martial meant that in effect the offences were a ‘criminal charge’ and thus – as with Mubarak – then entitled the defendant to rights under Art 6.3.

 

Family Law Act 1996 ss 42 and 42A and European Convention 1950 Art 6.3

 

The question then arises: does the protection of Art 6.3 arise at the civil order – ie the FLA 1996 s 42 stage; or only at the criminal prosecution (s 42A) stage?

 

This was explained in Prest v Prest (above) where McFarlane LJ said of earlier findings made to a lower standard:

 

[62] … It is, indeed, necessary for a judge who is required, at a subsequent stage in proceedings, to make findings on the higher criminal standard of proof, to ensure that earlier findings made on the lower civil standard are not, even inadvertently, relied upon as substantive findings in the subsequent quasi criminal process.

 

And this is without, in this post, going into questions of issue estoppel. On the basis of the assertion of McFarlane LJ – which is entirely understandable – then it may be argued that such estoppel could only apply to facts found to a criminal standard of proof. Does it not mean in practice that the findings on which the NMO were made, if not accepted by B, must be re-opened once more at the committal stage?

 

If this is the case, then better surely to ensure that findings at the s 42 stage are – if not to the criminal standard at that stage – made with the requirements of Art 6(3) fully met so far as B is concerned. So far as possible findings can then be relied upon by the police and A if a s 42A prosecution becomes necessary? Allegations proved to a lower standard must not – on Prest principles – simply be recycled to punish B. The substratum of proof at the later stage may not do justice to B.

 

Legal aid and the non-molestation order

 

The question prior to this is: what is B’s entitlement to legal aid at the s 42 hearing stage? The position of the law in relation to exceptional case determinations under LASPOA 2012 s 10(3) was considered in my ‘Convention compliance of legal aid exceptional case determination’ . This was after R (Gudanaviciene & Ors) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1622 and concerned entitlement under Art 6(1): can a person like the immigration appellant Ms Gudanaviciene have a fair trial without legal aid. If not, exceptional case determination might apply. This principle might apply also to B if he is opposed by a represented former partner A.

 

But if the Engel and Art 6.3(c) points are correct then B should be entitled to legal aid at the prior – non-molestation order – Art 6.3(c) stage. It is likely to be an exceptional case determination decision, but it should be relatively straightforward.

 

 I acknowledge, with thanks, the brief comments of Vicky Ling and Simon Pugh, authors of LAG Legal Aid Handbook 2017/18, in my preparation of this post. All errors are mine.

Advertisements

Non-molestation and open court hearings

Is it the law that family court injunctions be heard in open court

 

In A child and the open justice principle I asked why the ‘child’ Charlie Pearce must – rightly, surely? – have his name published after his attempted murder trial (R v Pearce (Press Restrictions) Haddon-Cave J (7 December 2017); whilst, for example, the names be kept private of the parents of the unattractive stalking – and worse – mother and her cohabitant (‘Mr JM’) of 10 year-old T in Re T (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1889 (23 November 2017). I continued: why are parents whose children, at their hands, protected sometimes from serious harm are not named; whereas the name of Mr Khuja (reported on BAILII as ‘PNM’), who investigated for serious crimes but not prosecuted for any offence is made public (Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49.

 

Most startlingly, a man (say, ‘R’) can be brought anonymously (ie ‘in private’ or secretly) before the family courts for often dire forms of ‘molestation’ of their partner or children (Family Law Act 1996 (‘FLA 1996’) Pt 4); yet R, if prosecuted, will be dealt with in open court, on the same facts. Are the family courts, it might fairly be asked, trying to keep R’s behaviour secret? Is the ‘scourge’ (as Sir James Munby P has described it) of domestic violence and abuse to be dealt with behind closed family courts’ doors? If R breaches any injunction, this will be dealt with in public – though not in family proceedings – as a criminal offence FLA 1996 s 42A.

 

Family proceedings: hearings ‘in private’

 

The rule in family proceedings since April 2011 is said to be that all proceedings covered by Family Procedure Rules 2010 (‘FPR 2010’), save where otherwise ordered or the rules say something else, are to be in ‘private’ (r 27.10(1)). ‘In private’ means that ‘the general public has no right to be present’ (r 27.10(2)).

 

Two important common law principles are in play here:

 

  • That all hearings must be in open court (Scott & Anor v Scott [1913] UKHL 2, [1913] AC 417; affirmed in eg European Convention 1950 Art 6.1), unless administration of justice or eg the welfare of children (as now summarised in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (‘CPR 1998’) r 39.2(3)) requires confidential (or ‘private’?) hearing. What is meant by ‘private’ was explained by the Court of Appeal in Clibbery v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [200] Fam 261, [2002] 2 WLR 1511, [2002] 1 FLR 565
  • The law cannot be changed by a rule save where statute permits: see eg Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) [2014] UKSC 18, [2014] 1 WLR 933 where Lady Hale said at [27]: That rules cannot ‘change the substantive law unless expressly permitted so to do by statute: see Re Grosvenor Hotel Ltd (No 2)[1965] Ch 1210’ (Senior Courts Act 1981 s 51(1) which permits rules to create substantive law on costs is an example of the exception).

 

The passage (italicised below) with which Lady Hale agreed was from Lord Denning MR where he said in Re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2) [1965] Ch 1210 at 1243 (of an attempt by rule-makers to change the law on public interest immunity):

 

The truth must be faced that, if this rule is within the powers of the Rule Committee to make, the hands of the judges are tied. They have no option but to act on [what] the Minister or of the permanent head of his department [says]. What then are the powers of the Rule Committee? They can make rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice of the court, but they cannot alter the rules of evidence, or the ordinary law of the land. The law as to Crown privilege is not mere procedure or practice. It may perhaps be said to be a rule of evidence, but I would rank it higher. It is a principle of our constitutional law which is to be observed in the administration of justice, not only when a witness is called to give oral evidence, but also when a party is called upon to give discovery…. If this rule only states the existing law, there is no harm in it. But if it gives the government departments a veto on the production or inspection of documents — to a greater extent than that which is warranted by law — the rule is, in my opinion, bad.

 

Delegated legislation and Parliamentary will

 

At this point one judicial canard – with respect to, for example, MacDonald and Mostyn JJ – must be laid to rest. Both those judges have given judgments which suggest that Parliament have somehow ‘expressly provided’ for a change in the law from open court to private hearings for all family proceedings (save where for eg divorce hearings they are in open court) by the fact that the Lord Chancellor’s Family Procedure Rules Committee has changed the rules.

 

Such express provision of Parliament is not so. Like the majority of delegated legislation, rules are made under the negative resolution procedure (Courts Act 2003 s 79(6)). Only one set of such legislation has been queried by a member of either House in the last 37 years. Courts Act 2003 ss 75 and 76 make it clear that it is the rules committee which makes the rules, not – even under any constitutional law fiction – that Parliament has done the job.

 

Thus in HRH Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume Prince of Luxembourg, Prince of Nassau and Prince of Bourbon-Parma v HRH Tessy Princess of Luxembourg, Princess of Nassau and Princess of Bourbon-Parma & Anor [2017] EWHC 3095 (Fam), Macdonald J said of the rules on a number of occasions words to the effect of:

 

[87] … In this regard, I note again that Parliament has expressly provided in FPR r 27.11(1)(a) for the media to be excluded from hearings conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiation…

 

In Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 1 Mostyn J spoke of Parliament specifically maintaining proceedings in private (which seems to be in direct opposition to what Lord Denning MR said over 50 years ago: it is rule-makers not Parliament, who – in reality – make the rules):

 

[14] … Parliament when passing the rules specifically maintained these proceedings as private, and denied members of the public admission to them.

[15] … It is inconceivable that Parliament could have intended to destroy the effect of the implied undertaking when it allowed the press to observe these private proceedings as a watchdog….

 

Parliament did not even contemplate the ‘implied undertaking’. It is not mentioned in FPR 2010 at all. It is mentioned in rule form in CPR 1998 r 31.22 (intended to reverse the former rule in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338). Formally that rule does not apply in family proceedings. What precisely the ‘implied undertaking’, and whether Harman still applies, in family proceedings is muddled. Probably it is best described, for family proceedings, as in line with CPR 1998 r 31.22 (see discussion in Family Court Practice 2017 under FPR 2010 Pt 21).

 

Rule in Clibbery v Allan

 

Clibbery v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [200] Fam 261, [2002] 2 WLR 1511, [2002] 1 FLR 565 concerned whether Ms Clibbery could pass documents which she received from the respondent in proceedings under FLA 1996 Pt (an unsuccessful occupation order application), so far as they were not covered by the ‘implied undertaking’ not to release documents required to be produced under compulsion of (then) ‘discovery’. In a frequently cited case and agreeing in the outcome with Munby J below (Clibbery v Allan [2001] 2 FLR 819) the Court of Appeal (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P with whom Thorpe LJ agreed) held that though the hearing was in ‘private’ documents could be released by Ms Clibbery to the press. Anonymity seems not to have been in issue.

 

Dame Elizabeth explained the term ‘private’ – as distinct from open court and ‘secret’ or ‘confidential’ – as follows:

 

[19] … I am driven to recall Humpty Dumpty: ‘When I use a word – it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

[20]   I would therefore suggest that there are three categories of case, those heard in open court, those heard in private and those heard in secret where the information disclosed to the court and the proceedings remain confidential.

 

This tri-partite division remains the common law position in family proceedings; and on the Grosvenor Hotel principle it cannot be changed by delegated legislation. It is not altered by such cases as Appleton v Gallagher and Luxembourg v Luxembourg since these do not apply in the case of Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4.

 

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4, anonymity and ‘private court’ hearings

 

Subject to the ‘implied undertaking’ (or CPR 1998 r 31.22) point, the law would seem to be as in Clibbery v Allan. That as the Court of Appeal had explained in Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1056, ‘privacy’ means that, space permitting, the public are allowed into a court held in private (after all the words of r 27.10(2) do not prevent asking for permission: that is how it works with any situation where a person has no right, but can ask to come in, all the same).

 

Thus a frightened ex-partner or spouse can invite friends or family to come to court with her. They do not need special permission and the court can be asked to make room for them. Whether the press and others – eg to see how any successor to Prison and Courts Bill cl 47 works in practice – can come into court: that awaits another day, another discussion of this absurdly complex area of law. There seems to be no logic in the same facts being dealt with in ‘private’ (if not in secret) in a family court, but in open court in criminal proceedings; but logic does not rule family law when the open justice principle may apply.

 

And anonymity: surely that cannot truly be in question? The names of mother and Mr JM – especially in the Court of Appeal – should surely be public. To that extent, at least, family courts need not afford secrecy to those who molest or otherwise abuse their partners, children or other members of their family – unless publicity of their names might be jig-saw linked back to any children concerned.

NON-MOLESTATION: DRAFT ORDER IGNORES THE LAW

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4: ‘non-molestation order’

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has issued a draft non-molestation order which barely complies with the law and manages not to use the word – ‘non-molestation’ or molestation – on which it is based.

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4 s 42(2) enable family court judges to make non-molestation orders in the following terms and for the following individuals:

(2)The court may make a non-molestation order—

(a)if an application for the order has been made (whether in other family proceedings or without any other family proceedings being instituted) by a person who is associated with the respondent; or

(b)if in any family proceedings to which the respondent is a party the court considers that the order should be made for the benefit of any other party to the proceedings or any relevant child even though no such application has been made.

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4 defines ‘non-molestation’ as

(1) …. a “non-molestation order” means an order containing either or both of the following provisions—

(a)provision prohibiting a person ( “the respondent”) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent;

(b)provision prohibiting the respondent from molesting a relevant child.

Orders can be made by judges in the Family Court which may be before circuit judges, district judges or magistrates; but it may also be in the Family Division.

Molestation: a definition

‘Molestation’ is an ordinary English word which has been accepted by the courts in accordance with its Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition since at least 1973 (Vaughan v Vaughan [1973] 1 WLR 1159). It is defined in Home Office documents (see further Family Court Practice 2014 at p 1000).

In the recent case of In the matter of an application by Gloucestershire County Council for the committal to prison of Matthew John Newman [2014] EWHC 3136 (Fam), Sir James Munby P defined ‘harassing’ in much the same way as molestation (the word had been used in a children proceedings order to restrain a father):

[29] “Harassing”, like “molesting”, is an ordinary English word and there is nothing in the order of 16 May 2014 to suggest that it was being used in any special sense, let alone as a term of art. It is to the dictionary that I accordingly turn. The Oxford English Dictionary provides, in addition to a number of more antique meanings, an apt definition of harass which, in my judgment, reflects what the word harassing means when used in this order:

“To subject (an individual or group) to unwarranted (and now esp. unlawful) physical or psychological intimidation, usually persistently over a period; to persecute. Also more generally: to beleaguer, pester.”

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: ignorance of statute

Not content with the terms which Parliament has laid down, and which the common law has explained, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has ignored Family Law Act 1996 s 42 and the common law. It has issued a draft order which seems to avoid use of the word ‘molest’ altogether. That part of the draft which deals with the operative part of the order (for the sake of simplicity, and the assistance of litigants in person, it is 5 pages – 23 paragraphs – long) is in the following terms:

Non-Molestation Order – Applicant

  1. The respondent, [YY], must not use or threaten violence against the applicant, [XX], and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not intimidate, harass or pester the applicant, [XX], and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not telephone, text, email or otherwise contact or attempt to contact the applicant, [XX], (including via social networking websites or other forms of electronic messaging) [except for the purpose of making arrangements for contact between the respondent and the children of the family] / [except through [his]/[her] solicitors [insert name, address and telephone number]].
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not damage, attempt to damage or threaten to damage any property owned (whether solely or jointly with another) by, or in the possession or control of, the applicant, [XX], and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not damage, attempt to damage or threaten to damage the property or contents of [the family home]/[insert property], and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.

Non-Molestation Order – Zonal

  1. The respondent, [YY], must not go to, enter or attempt to enter [the family home] / [insert property] / [any property where he knows or believes the applicant, [XX], to be living], and must not go [within [insert] metres of it] / [along the road(s) known as [insert]], except that the respondent may [go to the property [without entering it]] / [go along the road(s) known as [insert]] for the purpose of collecting the children of the family for, and returning them from, such contact as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the respondent or in default of agreement ordered by the court.

Non-Molestation Order – Children

  1. The respondent, [YY], must not use or threaten violence against the child[ren] of the family, and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not intimidate, harass or pester the child[ren] of the family, and must not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so.
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not telephone, text, email or otherwise contact or attempt to contact the child[ren] of the family (including via social networking websites or other forms of electronic messaging) [except for such contact as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the respondent or in default of agreement ordered by the court].
  1. The respondent, [YY], must not [between the hours of 08:30 and 16:00] go to, enter or attempt to enter the school premises known as [insert], and must not go [within [insert] metres of it] / [along the road(s) known as [insert]], except [by prior written agreement with the applicant] / [by prior written invitation from the school authorities].

‘Non-molestation’: the broad definition, a bad habit

The more compendious you try to make the definition of ‘non-molestation’ the more a respondent can say: ‘Ah well, what I did isn’t on that list’; whereas Parliament and the common law intend that almost any actionable behaviour between parties can be caught by the term ‘non-molestation’ (see eg Khan v Khan [1995] 2 FLR 221, CA). The judge on the day can then decide whether the behaviour amounts to molestation, whether in his/her discretion an order should be made, and if so what – beyond ‘non-molestation’ – need be incorporated into the terms of the order.

The draftsman of this precedent is remarkably naïve if s/he does not realise these simple, but relatively obvious, truths.  And there is the little matter of Parliament’s will, and the statutory foundation for the jurisdiction (as the House of Lords reminded family lawyers in Richards v Richards [1984] FLR 11). The statute should not, please, be ignored in the drafting of documents like this. It gets litigants – whether represented or not – into very bad habits.