Cambridge Family Law Practice

A husband who obtained a non-molestation order against his wife has been refused permission to speak about the matter publicly.

In this unusual case, Mr G and Ms S met in 2021 and were married the following year. They only began to live together following the marriage, then separated less than six months later.

Sitting in the East London Family Court, Her Honour Judge Madeleine Reardon noted:

“The marriage was unhappy from the start. Each party alleges that the other behaved in a controlling, aggressive and violent manner during their cohabitation.”

Since the separation, both Mr G and Ms S have claimed the other is engaged in a campaign of harassment against the other, involving family members and friends.

Following the separation, the husband applied for a non-molestation order against his estranged wife. It was granted for a period of one year, on a ‘without notice’ basis – meaning without the participation of the wife.

Later the wife applied for a non-molestation order against the husband, and this was listed for consideration at the same hearing as a possible renewal of the husband’s order. Each party was asked to provide evidence backing up their claims.

The wife subsequently withdrew her own application and did not contest a six-month renewal of the husband’s non-molestation order. At the same hearing, the husband applied for permission to discuss the case publicly. The wife opposed this and the case was listed for a hearing before Judge Reardon.

It was said that the husband seriously considered withdrawing his application shortly before the scheduled hearing, fearing that it might prejudice a possible future trial of the wife for an assault allegedly committed against him. However, on further consideration, he and his legal team concluded that the risk was minimal and his application went forward.

At the eventual hearing before Judge Reardon, she considered whether or not Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA 1960) applied. This section concerns the “Publication of information relating to proceedings in private”, setting out the circumstances in which the publication of such information is and isn’t contempt of court. But Section 12 of the Act does not make any explicit statements concerning non-molestation orders, having, of course, been placed on the statute books decades earlier.

Judge Reardon therefore considered any precedent-setting cases. She found only one that was directly relevant – Clibbery v Allan, from 2002 – but the Judge in that case had not reached any firm conclusions as to whether applications for non-molestation orders should be treated as strictly private, even after the completion of the related hearings.

Her Honour Judge Reardon therefore reached her own conclusion, declaring that applications for non-molestation orders should be treated the same as others made under the Family Law Act 1996: they should be confidential as a basic starting point, a decision reflecting the fact that most judgements are still published in anonymised form. In addition, Ms S retained a right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Judge therefore refused the husband’s application.

Kathryn Evans, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, observes: “It would seem highly unusual that the ‘beneficiary’ of a non-molestation order would want to discuss the case publicly, and perhaps even actively seek publicity about what would usually be considered a very private matter. Save for those in the know, we are left in the dark about who these people are and what the ‘full story’ is, but Judge Reardon understandably decided that – in the eyes of the law at least – that is the way it should be.”

Read the full ruling here.