Why legal representation is crucial in non-molestation order cases

Categories: News

A family law expert has advised against self-representation in cases involving harassment or threatening behaviour, warning that findings can have far-reaching consequences.

ORJ leading expert Tia Bickley said it can be tempting for respondents in cases involving non-molestation orders (NMOs) to fight their own corner, either due to expense or because they believe the accusations are baseless.

But Tia warned caution, stressing that findings in NMO cases can be used elsewhere, including in Children Act Proceedings – and even in cases where formal findings are not made it is important for anyone on the receiving end of a NMO to understand that a breach of the order could result in them being arrested and, ultimately, facing a custodial sentence.

Tia said: “Claimants in NMO cases will typically qualify for Legal Aid, so they are highly likely to be represented.

“This is not the case for respondents, however. I have seen examples of people, overwhelmingly men, trying to represent themselves. Often NMOs are applied for during a divorce when they are already spending large amounts of money and are reluctant to spend any more.

“Sometimes a respondent is so confident of their innocence they do not believe legal representation is required. In their mind, having full knowledge of the situation, the case can appear deceptively cut and dried.

“But it is really important that a respondent who has been served with a NMO is represented by legal experts, not least because of the implications if their case goes to a final hearing where findings of fact can be found against them and are likely to be used by the other party in other ways, including proceedings concerning arrangements of children. Findings can also have a negative impact on an individual’s employment status or lead to police involvement.

There are four main options available to respondents in non-molestation order cases:

• Accept the order – the respondent agrees not to oppose the NMO without admitting fault or contesting the allegations.
• Agreement to give undertakings – a solemn promise to the court not to do certain things, without admitting any guilt formally recorded but in place of an NMO. Failure to comply could lead to imprisonment for Contempt of Court.
• Defend/challenge the allegations – the respondent will need to provide evidence to support their case, usually challenging the applicant’s witness statement.
• Cross-undertakings – both the applicant and the respondent promise the court they will not commit an act/s against each other. Failure to comply could lead to imprisonment for Contempt of Court.

Tia added: “NMO claims are rarely straightforward or black and white. Everybody deserves a fair hearing and professional representation.

“We are happy to advise and represent respondents in NMO cases and have a good track record of achieving agreements that work for both parties.”

To speak to Tia about NMOs, email tia.bickley@orj.co.uk or call 01785 275351.