Non-molestation order definition

View the related practice notes about Non-molestation order

Non-molestation orders

This Practice Note explains the criteria that the court must have regard to when considering an application for a non-molestation order under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). It explains who can apply for a non-molestation order and who are associated persons under FLA 1996, Pt IV. It also considers the definition of molestation. It contains a summary of the provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DAA 2021).Under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) a non-molestation order is an order prohibiting a person (the respondent) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent or a relevant child.The court can make a non-molestation order: •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•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...

Sexual harm prevention orders

Sexual harm prevention orders SA 2020, Ch 2 Pt 10 provides for sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs) to be made by the court where it deals with a defendant (ie following conviction) for specific types of offences. The provisions of SOA 2003, as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014), and SA 2020, at SOA 2003, ss 103A to 103K, govern the making of SHPOs otherwise than in connection with a conviction ie where: • a court finds a person not guilty of a specified sexual or violent offence by reason of insanity • a court finds that the defendant is under a disability and has done the act charged against the defendant in respect of such an offence, or • on the application of the police in respect of a qualifying offender who poses a risk to the public This Practice Note is concerned primarily with the making of SHPOs as part of the sentencing process on conviction. For information on sexual...

View the related q&as about Non-molestation order

In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996, the applicant has produced as part of their evidence a recording of the respondent made without the respondent’s knowledge. The respondent believes that the applicant has made further covert recordings which have not been disclosed. Is there case law to support that the applicant or their solicitors should disclose copies of all covert recordings made?

In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996, the applicant has produced as part of their evidence a recording of the respondent made without the respondent’s knowledge. The respondent believes that the applicant has made further covert recordings which have not been disclosed. Is there case law to support that the applicant or their solicitors should disclose copies of all covert recordings made? The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence committed where an individual covertly records a conversation with another individual. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) applies to public bodies but not to individuals. Likewise, the Telecommunications(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2699 apply to businesses in respect of the recording of conversations without notice to the person being recorded or in certain specified exceptional circumstances. In Jones v University of Warwick, an enquiry agent...