I was interested to read the letter you received from District Judge Peter Glover concerning the abolition of powers of arrest in relation to non-molestation orders (see [2008] Gazette, 25 September, 7).

I fully agree with the observations made by him that an issue of critical importance arises from the abolition of powers of arrest.

From my perspective, as a practitioner, the lack of a power of arrest inevitably results in the police conducting a routine investigation into crime. If, as is often the case, there is a lack of independent corroborative evidence, the complaint goes no further. The burden of proof in crime is, of course, substantially different to that in civil proceedings.

Arrests will result but the victim will often have to endure a wait for police to conclude their enquiries, consult with the Crown Prosecution Service, and then decide whether they have reached the threshold criteria for charge.

This, in my experience, leaves the victim in an invidious position of being ‘in the dark’ for a significant period. Because of the conflict of jurisdictions the criminal investigation should, it would appear, take precedence, but delay of that process creates significant anxiety for complainants.

Therefore, I would agree with the district judge that the immediate involvement of expert judiciary who would resolve all the various issues would mitigate some of the factors that would otherwise provoke further breaches, and also remove the ineffectiveness of the new regime.

Unfortunately, when the legislation was passed, insufficient regard appears to have been given to the inevitable protocols that apply to investigating and prosecuting crime, which result in either no action or, at the very least, delay.

The current situation is highly unsatisfactory, leaving vulnerable persons with far less protection and certainty than they had under the previous regime.

Robert Hanratty, Hanratty & Co, Newtown, Powys.