Exam Bank for Domestic Violence- Questions and Correct Answers Latest Update 2025
1 view 0 purchase
Module
Domestic Violence
Institution
Domestic Violence
Exam Bank for Domestic Violence- Questions and Correct Answers Latest Update 2025
Yemshaw v Hounslow (2011)(Supreme Court) - Answers (Definition of domestic violence). Mrs Y had left her husband and her family home because she feared that he was going to be violent towards her. There is a statutor...
Exam Bank for Domestic Violence- Questions and Correct Answers Latest Update 2025
Yemshaw v Hounslow (2011)(Supreme Court) - Answers (Definition of domestic violence). Mrs Y had left
her husband and her family home because she feared that he was going to be violent towards her.
There is a statutory provision which states that someone who leaves their home due to violence will be
prioritised in terms of the housing wait list. The Council argued that this was not applicable to her,
because there had been no actual violence in her case. HELD - the SC said that the definition of violence
included frightening or threatening behaviour. It focuses on the risk of harm, and anything that does
have a risk of harm is considered domestic violence. Mrs Y won her case.
Horner v Horner (1982)(COA) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). H was
a school teacher. Her ex husband was repeatedly phoning the school, as well and making degrading
poster and sticking them to the school premises. Whilst there was no threat of violence or direction
interaction, it was HELD that the fact that he was repeatedly doing this at her workplace was enough
reason for it to be molestation.
It was held that the term covers "any conduct which could be properly regarded as such a degree of
harassment as to call for the intervention of the court".
Johnson v Johnson !!!!! - Answers
Vaughan v Vaughan (1973)(COA) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). Mr
V was not being violent, but rather was being more of a 'nuisance'. He would hang around outside Mrs
V's workplace and the house, trying to persuade her to take him back; he wouldn't leave her alone.
HELD - this was sufficient to amount to molestation.
Spencer v Camacho (1984) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). After a
series of other activities for which the woman had obtained non-molestation orders, rifling through her
handbag was held to be sufficient conduct to amount to molestation.
C v C (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction)(COA) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of
'molestation'). The wife was providing information about her husband's behaviour to a national
newspaper. The husband was seeking a non-molestation order to prevent this from happening. HELD -
this wasn't an appropriate instance for a non-molestation order, because this wasn't molestation.
Rather, it was a gagging order disguised as a NM order.
D v L (2003)(COA) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). This concerned a
failing relationship where there was violence against the woman. She had secretly recorded
conversations they had had that suggested he had unusual sexual profundities, and she wanted to
present this as evidence in court. He argued that this was a violation of his Article 8 right to privacy; she
argued the prohibition would be a violation of her Article 10 right to freedom of expression. HELD - the
courts said that as long as these tapes were used only in the context of applying for a NM order and they
weren't generally published, then they could be used as evidence in court.
, Banks v Banks (1999) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). Mrs B had
mental health problems, forcing her to be violence towards her husband. He sought a NM order. HELD -
there is no point issuing a NM order when the person doing the molesting is doing so involuntarily. If the
molestation is a symptom of a mental disorder, a NM will do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Perhaps suggests that mens rea is important. BUT because this was a county court case, it holds no
precedence value, but is interesting as the question arises so often.
Chechi v Bashier (1999) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of 'molestation'). There was a
family dispute about ownership of land between two brothers. Violence arguments occurred between
the two. One brother sought a NM order (which he was absolutely entitled to do, considering that he
was an 'associated person' for the purposes of the legislation), which was granted to him ex parte.
However, at the full hearing, the courts HELD that a NM order should never has been granted, as both
brothers had been 'as bad as each other' and therefore it would have been unfair to give one an
advantage over the other. The courts said there should have been an informal resolution between the
two which promised that they would not pursue the same violent methods (typical of the courts in such
a situation to de-formalise their approach). It was said here that undertaking should be used where
possible (an 'undertaking' to do something in an informal setting = s46).
G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jursidiction)(2000) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; the definition of
'associated persons'). The court emphasised that a purposive construction should be taken when
deciding whether an applicant was associated with the respondent for the purposes of the legislation.
This case concerned a boyfriend who was violent towards the girlfriend. The applicant did not live with
the respondent but they stayed with each other 2 or 3 nights of the week and for a time had a joint bank
account, and so there was a question as to whether they were cohabitants. HELD - where someone
applies for a NM order and the fact of whether they are an 'associated person' is questioned, it will
usually b assumed that they are an associated persons. The parties were cohabitants within the meaning
of the FLA 1996.
Re B-J (A Child)(Non-Molestation Order: Power of Arrest)(2000)(COA) - Answers (Duration of a non-
molestation order). In a previous case it was held that a NM hanging over someone's head indefinitely
would be unfair, and so they argued that a NM order should be time limited unless in exceptional
circumstances. In this case, the COA HELD - a judge shouldn't have to say what is exceptional
circumstances. There is no need to fetter discretion.
R v Richards (Anthony)(2010)(COA) - Answers (Non-molestation orders; criminal breach of NM order). A
NM order existed against Richards, which meant he was not allowed within 25m of his ex wife's home.
However, Richards was concerned about the children who were staying with the mother, because of the
mother's drinking problem and the knowledge that she was drinking whilst taking care of the children.
Richards went to the house to see who was looking after his children. He was convicted under s42A, but
his conviction was quashed. It was held that the trial court hadn't discussed whether Richards had a
reasonable excuse (s42A(1)). HELD - the COA said that the burden of proof was on the Crown to prove
that he didn't have a good excuse, rather than on Richards to prove that he did.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TutorJosh. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.67. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
