R v Jason Daniel Clark

R v Jason Daniel Clark

The evidence was capable of proving that the defendant was served with, and received, the non-molestation order via WhatsApp before any of the conduct charged; any possible defect in the wording of the order did not prevent it from being valid and binding unless and until set aside; awareness of the existence of the order is sufficient for criminal liability under section 42A(2) of the Family Law Act 1996; the recorder's ruling was wrong in law and not reasonable.

Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: Jason Daniel Clark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2025
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
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Breach of Court Order, Service of Documents, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Family Law Non Molestation Order Breach of Court Order Service of Documents Reporting Restrictions

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

Jason Daniel Clark

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 for breach
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court order was defective and unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was capable of proving that the defendant was served with, and received, the non-molestation order via WhatsApp before any of the conduct charged; any possible defect in the wording of the order did not prevent it from being valid and binding unless and until set aside; awareness of the existence of the order is sufficient for criminal liability under section 42A(2) of the Family Law Act 1996; the recorder's ruling was wrong in law and not reasonable.

Court Disposition

recorder's ruling reversed; proceedings to continue

Orders

  • Trial to start again before a different judge at a different court centre
  • Reporting restrictions discharged under section 71 Criminal Justice Act 2003