For several years, my client Barry Matthews was in a relationship with Louise Sanders.
The relationship broke down and Louise applied to the Family Court for a Non-molestation Order.
Upon hearing the application, the Court granted a Non-molestation Order on an ex-parte basis. The Order included a series of prohibited conditions including that Barry should not seek to communicate with Louise by any means, including Social Media.
The Non-molestation Order and supporting documents were subsequently emailed to Barry’s local County Court so as to facilitate service of the Order upon Barry by a Court registered bailiff.
Section 1 of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 makes it an offence for a person to do anything which is prohibited by a Non-molestation Order. The maximum penalty for breach of a Non-molestation Order is 5 years in prison.
On the 11 December 2015, Barry returned home to discover an envelope containing copies of the Non-molestation Order and associated documentation.
On the 7 February 2016, Barry sent a “tweet” to one of his followers on Twitter and inadvertently sent a copy of the tweet to Louise. A few weeks later, Barry sent a direct tweet to Louise.
On the morning of 21 February 2016, uniformed Police Officers from Greater Manchester Police attended at Barry’s home address and arrested him for breach of the Non-molestation Order.
Barry was transported to his local Police Station and detained. At the station, Barry established that the basis of his arrest was the sending of tweets to Louise on the 7 and 18 February 2016 in contravention of paragraph 7 of the Prohibitions contained in the Non-molestation Order.
Prior to that specific allegation being put to Barry, it was not within his knowledge that any such prohibition was in existence.
Barry was subsequently charged with two offences of breaching the provisions of the Non-molestation Order, and was refused bail to appear at the next available Court hearing.
On the 22 February, Barry appeared in custody at Bury Magistrates’ Court.
As it appeared that Barry had, at face value, breached the terms of the Non-molestation Order, on legal advice he pleaded guilty, and the proceedings were adjourned for sentence.
Barry was then released on bail having been in custody for approximately 28 hours.
Barry was subsequently sentenced to a Community Order and ordered to pay costs/compensation and made subject to a Restraining Order.
As Barry subsequently prepared for proceedings in the Family Court listed for the 22 April 2016, he became aware that he had not been served with the entirety of the Non-molestation Order on the 11 December and that crucial parts of the Order had been omitted. Specifically, Barry had not been made aware of paragraphs 3 – 8 which included the prohibition on contacting Louise via Social Media.
Accordingly, Barry subsequently submitted a formal complaint setting out his assertion that full and complete copies of the Non-molestation Order and supporting documents had not been served upon him, as required.
A week or so later, Barry received a response to his complaint from the Court which accepted that Barry had been served with incomplete documentation. The Manager at Court apologised and confirmed that the second page of the Order, setting out 6 conditions restricting contact with Louise had not been sent to the Bailiff to serve.
On the 9 June 2016, an Application under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 was made on the basis that the failure set out above for Barry to be properly served with the full extent of the terms of the Non-molestation Order and accordingly, on the 10 June, Barry’s conviction dated 22 February 2016 was formally set aside.
In addition to loss of liberty, Barry suffered psychological trauma by reason of events. His symptoms included hypervigilance, sleep disturbance, getting startled easily, problems with concentration and avoidance behaviour.
Following negotiation, the Court Service agreed to pay Barry £13,000 in compensation together with his legal fees.
My client’s name has been changed.
