In HR v TM [2024] EWFC 105 (B), the Family Court at Uxbridge extended a Non-Molestation Order against TM for an additional year following a fact-finding hearing. The court found that TM had physically and verbally abused HR on multiple occasions, including incidents of assault and coercive control. Despite TM’s failure to submit a witness statement, the court evaluated the evidence provided by HR, corroborated by third-party witnesses and police reports, and concluded that the allegations of domestic abuse were proven. The court emphasized the seriousness of TM's actions and warned him about future conduct, adding that the findings could be used in any related Children Act proceedings.
Case Overview:
Case Name: HR v TM (Non-Molestation Order: Domestic Abuse)
Court: Family Court at Uxbridge
Judgment Date: 21 May 2024
Judge: Deputy District Judge (DDJ) Nahal-Macdonald
Keywords: Non-Molestation Order, Domestic Abuse, Fact-Finding Hearing, Coercive Control
Legal Issues:
Non-Molestation Order:
The central issue was whether the interim Non-Molestation Order, initially granted on 4 October 2023, should be made permanent. HR alleged multiple instances of physical and verbal abuse by TM, including breaches of the interim order.
Fact-Finding Hearing (FFH):
The court conducted a fact-finding hearing to determine the validity of HR's allegations. Despite TM's failure to file a witness statement and his lack of representation, the court considered HR's evidence, supported by third-party testimony and police reports.
Court’s Analysis:
Witness Credibility: The court found HR to be a credible witness, consistent in her testimony about the incidents of abuse. The third-party witness, who corroborated one of the incidents, was also found to be reliable. In contrast, TM’s evidence was deemed evasive and unconvincing.
Pattern of Abuse: The court identified a pattern of coercive and controlling behavior by TM, including physical assaults, unauthorized appearances at HR's workplace, and attempts to control her communications. These actions were found to be indicative of domestic abuse.
Legal Framework: The court applied the principles from Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 and Re B-B [2022] EWHC 108, emphasizing that the burden of proof rested on HR and that findings must be based on the balance of probabilities.
Judgment Summary:
The Family Court upheld HR's allegations, finding TM guilty of domestic abuse, including physical assaults and coercive behavior. The court extended the Non-Molestation Order for an additional year, until 21 May 2025, and allowed the findings to be used in any future Children Act proceedings. The court also issued a warning to TM regarding his future conduct and mandated that both parties refrain from discussing the case in the presence of their child.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting victims of domestic abuse through Non-Molestation Orders and highlights the court's willingness to extend such orders when the evidence supports a continued risk. The case also underscores the need for proper legal representation and the consequences of failing to comply with court orders.
References:
Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448
Re B-B [2022] EWHC 108
For full details, refer to the published judgment.
Comments