Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) Successfully Defended Willesden Magistrates Court False Allegations

The police had served our female client a domestic violence protection notice and a court date to appear for a full order to be made. The complainant was her husband, who supported the order and police application.

She had been falsely accused of domestic violence by her ex-husband and arrested, but no further action was taken against her after a police investigation and interview. It was alleged that she used a phone to assault the victim and smash the phone. The parties cohabited after a divorce in 2024. The children resided with them at their jointly owned home address. Our client had also made multiple reports to the police about domestic issues that were not pursued or investigated.

 She appeared at court unable to pay for a lawyer after the police applied for a full 28-day Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO). A DVPO provides short-term protection to victims who engage with police or agencies. Our client denied all accusations, stating they were completely untrue.

If the order had been made –

• Our client would have been removed from her home and
• prevented from seeing her own children or having contact

The order can last between 14 to 28 days.

The unrepresented client sought help from a duty solicitor at court. The duty solicitors were unwilling to take the case, citing a lack of time and indicating they had little experience with the orders.  Umar Zeb, a Partner from JD Spicer Zeb, was requested by the court with a few minute's notice to represent and challenge the DVPO. The police were required to show that, on balance, violence had occurred or threats and that failure to make the order would allow violence or threats to continue.  The low threshold onus is on the police, but our client had to demonstrate her case was more favourable. Our strategy was to indicate that the allegations were false and that there was no reliable evidence to support the claims made against the defendant. We asserted that on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely that there had been no violence or threats of violence.

Key Points in the Case

1. Purpose of the DVPO: DVPOs are designed to provide immediate protection after a violent incident or if a threat of violence has occurred, ensuring the person at risk has a safe space to think, make decisions, or engage with agencies. The court doesn't have to predict what the victim might do in the future, such as whether they will return to the alleged abuser. The goal is to ensure they are safe shortly after the incident. The victim's consent is not required to apply for the order.
2. Unfounded Allegations and Lack of Evidence: We pointed out a distinct lack of evidence to support the claims made against the defendant. Furthermore, we argued that the accusations were inconsistent with evidence gathered by police, namely, no evidence of injuries sustained by the victim or damage to the victim’s mobile phone. We effectively cross-examined the police officer who had presented the DVPO application. The officer was unprepared and had not considered previous allegations made by our client, who was a victim of coercive behaviour, which weakened the case for the DVPO. In addition, the officer had not read a file concerning the case made by a colleague. Our skilful questioning highlighted the officer’s lack of preparation, further undermining the application's validity even on the low threshold.

The Court’s Decision

The Magistrates' Court decided not to enforce the DVPO due to strong arguments and cross-examination. The court found insufficient evidence of harm on the balance of probabilities to justify the order and agreed that it was unnecessary in the defendant’s case. Therefore, the defence from Umar Zeb was successful and the DVPO was not ordered. Our client was free to return home to her children. This case demonstrates how parties are able to make police reports to pressure the police into applying for court orders to exclude parties from their home when parties should be using the civil family court process, mediation or lawyers to separate and deal with marital issues.