The Family Law Act 1996 Part IV contains all the injunctive orders that can be sought regarding domestic abuse. Non-molestation orders are defined within s.42 Family Law Act 1996, specifically s.42(1) as a “provision prohibiting a person…from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent” and a “provision prohibiting the respondent from molesting a relevant child”. Molestation deliberately does not have a statutory definition as if a precise definition were to be created, certain behaviours would not count. Therefore it has been left with a “broad legal definition” to allow for a variety of violent and non-violent behaviours, to be remedied via a non-molestation order. As such, when making the decision whether to grant a
…show more content…
Therefore, to establish exactly what acts can be included under molestation, case law has to be looked at. In Horner v Horner, a wife threw her husband out of their house and as a result the husband tormented the wife by making abusive phone calls and mailing her abusive letters. This was held to be molestation and highlights that there does not have to be physical violence to be seen as molestation but rather just any “kind of conduct which makes life extremely difficult.” Similarly, with the case of Vaughn v Vaughn, where a husband and wife were separated but the husband was pestering outside the wife’s home and workplace, it was held that this amounted to molestation, again, even though no physical violence was involved and in Re C (a Child) , it was “concluded that the use of recording equipment amounted to a form of intimidation.” Within the case law it is clear that there is not the need for physical violence or even threats of violence for behaviour to be considered molestation, allowing a very wide range of abusive acts to be remedied using a non-molestation order. This suggests it is a suitable remedy for victims as they can be protected from a huge range of abusive behaviours, including non-violent behaviour and behaviour that is just seen as a being a
Therefore, to establish exactly what acts can be included under molestation, case law has to be looked at. In Horner v Horner, a wife threw her husband out of their house and as a result the husband tormented the wife by making abusive phone calls and mailing her abusive letters. This was held to be molestation and highlights that there does not have to be physical violence to be seen as molestation but rather just any “kind of conduct which makes life extremely difficult.” Similarly, with the case of Vaughn v Vaughn, where a husband and wife were separated but the husband was pestering outside the wife’s home and workplace, it was held that this amounted to molestation, again, even though no physical violence was involved and in Re C (a Child) , it was “concluded that the use of recording equipment amounted to a form of intimidation.” Within the case law it is clear that there is not the need for physical violence or even threats of violence for behaviour to be considered molestation, allowing a very wide range of abusive acts to be remedied using a non-molestation order. This suggests it is a suitable remedy for victims as they can be protected from a huge range of abusive behaviours, including non-violent behaviour and behaviour that is just seen as a being a