DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v STEPHENSON [2025] EWHC 950 (ADMIN)
An appeal concerning the legal effectiveness of a Non-Molestation Order (NMO) under the Family Law Act1996. The central issue is whether an NMO is valid only when served according to the Family Proceedings Rules (FPR), and if not served, whether a breach of the NMO can constitute a criminal offence under section 42A of the Act.
Nottingham Magistrates Court rules there was "no case to answer" for the respondent, due to the NMO not being served as required by FPR10.06. The Magistrates concluded that without personal service, the NMO was not legally effective, and thus, no offence could be made out under section 42A.
The High Court held that the NMO was legally effective despite the lack of service. The judgement emphasised that the primary legislation and rules of court do not stipulate that service is a precondition for the NMO's effectiveness. Instead, the NMO becomes effective when made, and criminal liability is subject to the respondent's awareness of the order and the "reasonable excuse" defence.
The court concluded that the Magistrates erred in law, reversed their determination, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted court for reconsideration.
