Withdrawal of Legal Aid Could Put Domestic Violence Victims at increased Risk

A leading family law expert has spoken out over a legal loophole which allows prosecuting parties a ‘passport’ to legal aid.

Paul Hunt from leading law firm Kirwans has voiced his concerns that non-molestation orders, a vital tool for those who are experiencing domestic violence, may come under the spotlight if they continue to be abused – which could prove detrimental to those in need.

Paul said: “As we know, from April 1st legal aid will no longer be available for family law cases unless they involve proceedings with social services or there is a proven element of domestic violence.

“In many cases no such ‘proven element’ will exist, as many victims of domestic abuse will suffer a number of incidents before telling close friends or family, let alone police or social services.

“The other way of proving the domestic violence element is to be able to say that a non-molestation order – also known as an injunction - has been made within the last 24 months. Such an order can restrain another party from using or threatening violence or initiating threatening or abusive communications, in whatever form.”

In order to protect those who may be in danger, in emergency situations orders are made without prior notice to the other party.

However, Paul is concerned that from April, there may be an increase in applications for unnecessary orders as a way of obtaining legal aid – putting a further strain on our already overworked legal system.

Paul said: “Unfortunately, the withdrawal of legal aid will put people in desperate financial situations. Once they realise that obtaining a non-molestation order may be a passport to getting legal aid for financial or child-related issues, there is a risk that such applications may be made without proper justification, especially when the prospects of being challenged at a later date by the other party are reduced.

“Non-molestation orders allow protection for the vulnerable, but if the system is abused then the Courts will undoubtedly review their use – resulting in those in need becoming even more vulnerable.”