The abolition of powers of arrest in relation to non-molestation orders can leave the victim questioning the whole process.

I was interested to read your report about the falling number of applications for non-molestation orders (see [2008] Gazette, 11 September, 4). I am not aware of any significant reduction in the number of such applications to the court where I sit at Dartford, but judges and practitioners have been concerned for some time that the impact of the 2005 act is not entirely beneficial.

Your report refers to the reluctance of female victims to criminalise violent partners who may often also be the fathers of their children. This is not a new issue and was a factor in the provision of a specific civil remedy for domestic violence introduced by the seminal act of 1973.

Other issues considered in that context included: the reluctance of the police to commit their time and resources to prosecuting the huge majority of such cases not involving serious assault or injury; the problems arising from a dearth of independent evidence; and the actual process of the criminal courts, where delays tended to weaken the witnesses’ resolve, or financial and housing problems encouraged the withdrawal of support for prosecution. All of these matters, now involving the Crown Prosecution Service as well as the police, remain pertinent.

However, I suggest there is a new issue of critical importance arising from the abolition of powers of arrest in relation to non-molestation orders. This relates to the victim’s perception of the utility of the whole process. Before the 2005 act came into force, an allegation of breach would result in the arrest of the respondent and the respondent being produced before a judge within 24 hours. The police were concerned only to arrest lawfully, leaving proof of the breach and the imposition of any penalty to the civil court. There is nothing to suggest that the police are now any less committed to apprehending the suspect, but there is no immediate court involvement to comfort the victim and confront the alleged aggressor.

Whereas my colleagues and I might deal with 30 to 50 arrested respondents in the course of a year, I have yet to hear personally, or from counsel appearing before me, of any convictions for such breaches in my area. On the other hand I have heard of serious breaches, which might well have resulted in immediate sentences of imprisonment, being dealt with by caution.

Perhaps what victims most need is not the full might of the criminal law but the immediate involvement of an expert judiciary, able also to consider and resolve underlying issues regarding children, housing and finance, and thereby mitigate some of the factors which might provoke further breaches.

District Judge Peter Glover, Dartford County Court