AVG, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1672 (20 November 2024)

AVG, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1672 (20 November 2024)

The evidence was capable of proving that the defendant was served with, and received, the non-molestation order via WhatsApp before the alleged breaches, and any defect in the order's wording did not prevent it from being valid and binding unless set aside. The recorder erred in law by ruling there was no case to answer based on service or awareness of the order's terms. The proceedings must continue before a different judge and court centre.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1672
Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: AVG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Recorder's ruling reversed; proceedings to continue at Crown Court before a different judge and court centre.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Breach of Court Order, Service of Court Documents, Submission of No Case to Answer, Appeal Against Terminating Ruling
Criminal Law Family Law Non Molestation Order Breach of Court Order Service of Court Documents Submission of No Case to Answer Appeal Against Terminating Ruling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

AVG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of a non-molestation order is a prerequisite for criminal liability under s.42A Family Law Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on the defendant's awareness of the order
  3. 3 Whether the Family Court order was defective and unenforceable due to non-compliance with Family Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was capable of proving that the defendant was served with, and received, the non-molestation order via WhatsApp before the alleged breaches, and any defect in the order's wording did not prevent it from being valid and binding unless set aside. The recorder erred in law by ruling there was no case to answer based on service or awareness of the order's terms. The proceedings must continue before a different judge and court centre.

Court Disposition

Recorder's ruling reversed; proceedings to continue at Crown Court before a different judge and court centre.

Orders

  • Proceedings in the Crown Court shall continue.
  • Trial to be held before a different judge at a different court centre.