A dad was ordered not to contact social workers involved with his disabled son. He broke the order and put up posters. A judge gave him a new, stricter order for 5 years. The dad tried to appeal but the higher court said the first judge was right and refused to overturn the 5-year order because the dad hadn't given a good reason for his delay in appealing.
Key Facts
- •Applicant's son with significant disabilities was in local authority care.
- •Family Court issued a non-molestation order against the applicant in 2019, preventing him from intimidating, harassing, or contacting local authority employees or posting flyers about his son.
- •Applicant was charged with breaching the order by posting flyers revealing his son's and social worker's identities.
- •At the Crown Court, the prosecution offered no evidence in exchange for the applicant accepting a restraining order under section 5A of the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997.
- •Judge Mann imposed a five-year restraining order mirroring the non-molestation order.
- •Applicant appealed the restraining order, arguing lack of proof, improper service of the order, and other issues.
- •The appeal was submitted late, with no adequate explanation for the delay.
Legal Principles
Section 5A of the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997 allows for restraining orders to protect individuals from harassment.
Protection Against Harassment Act 1997
A restraining order can be made if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is necessary to protect a person from harassment.
Case Law (implied from the judgment)
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the restraining order and refused an extension of time.
The Court found no arguable error of law in the restraining order. The judge had considered the evidence and found it sufficient to meet the statutory threshold. The applicant's arguments lacked merit, and the late submission of the appeal was not adequately explained.