On the facts (OTF), Simon has become violent towards Jill and hit her on several occasions. This falls within the ambit of domestic violence which constituted by any incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behavior, violence as well as abuse between partners regardless of gender or sexuality. The actual physical violence would possibly invoke the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) under criminal law, particularly s.42 common assault.
Simon turned up at the law firm which Jill works and had been verbally …show more content…
She might not wish Simon to be prosecuted which poor record of prosecution in the UK tend to promote the culture of tolerance.
The relevant civil law in Northern Ireland is the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (NI) Order 1998. There are two types of remedies: the non-molestation order(NMO) and the occupation order (OO). NMO is more common to be granted as it is available to all associated persons. Article 3(3) is being referred which Jill and Simon are spouses that have been married for 8 years. NMO is defined as orders which deter person from molesting another person who associated with the respondent and a relevant child (article 20(1)).
It has been pointed out in article 2(2) that ‘molestation’ including conducts such as harasses or threatens the applicant. In C v C (Non-molestation Order: Jurisdiction), Sir Simon Brown suggested that molestation implies when there is some quite deliberate conduct aimed at a high degree of harassment of another party that sufficient to be intervened by courts. It is food for thought as if Simon’s conducts will be deemed as ‘high degree harassment’. The cases of Vaughan v Vaughan and Tabone v Seguna are applicable to Jill’s …show more content…
If the order is not granted, it will have great effect on Molly’s daily routine as Molly is too young to adapt to a new environment. If the order been granted, Jill might be able to force Simon leave the house at least for a while. However, Simon might become depress, facing financial problems and have no alternative accommodation. In Dolan v Corby , Black LJ clarified that Chalmers v Johns and G v G (Occupation Order: Conduct) should be made at the discretion of court whether to make the order by referring the checklist under article 11(6) even the harm test is not