Non-molestation orders (NMOs) have long provided an important means of protecting victims of domestic abuse through the family courts. However, the introduction of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs) is a significant development in the framework available to victims. With the national rollout of DAPOs scheduled for 25 November 2026, will these new orders replace NMOs?
Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduces two protective measures: Domestic Abuse Protection Notices (DAPNs) and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs).
Under section 22, a senior police officer may issue a DAPN where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an individual has been abusive towards a personally connected person aged 16 or over, and that the notice is necessary to protect that person from domestic abuse or the risk of further abuse. A DAPN may impose restrictions on the individual concerned, including prohibitions on contact and restrictions relating to the victim’s home.
Although breach of a DAPN is not itself a criminal offence, section 26 provides the police with a power of arrest without a warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a breach.
DAPOs provide a broader and more flexible form of protection. Under section 27 of the Act, a DAPO may prohibit an individual from engaging in specified conduct or require them to undertake particular actions.
A DAPO may be made following an application under section 28 or by a court in the course of specified proceedings under section 31. Under section 28, an application for a DAPO may be made by the person requiring protection, the appropriate chief officer of police, a person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or another person with the leave of the court.
Section 28(5) provides that applications for DAPOs must generally be made to the family court, subject to specified exceptions.
There is a requirement under section 28(3), that where a DAPN has been issued, the relevant officer of the police must apply for a. DAPO. Applications made by a chief officer of police must be brought before the magistrates’ court pursuant to section 28(6).
Separately, section 31 empowers courts to make DAPOs of their own motion in certain family, civil or criminal proceedings, subject to the statutory conditions. Where the person requiring protection and the respondent are already parties to family or civil proceedings, an application can be made within such proceedings, provided the conditions in section 28(7) are satisfied. The legislation therefore allows DAPOs to be obtained across multiple avenues.
As with NMOs, DAPOs may be made without notice to the respondent. Under section 34(1), the court may make such an order where it considers it just and convenient to do so. In determining whether to exercise this power, the court must consider all the circumstances, including the risk of significant harm if an order is not made immediately, whether the applicant may be deterred or prevented from pursuing the application, and whether the respondent is deliberately evading service in circumstances where delay would cause serious prejudice.
Where a DAPO is made without notice, section 34(4) requires the respondent to be given an opportunity to make representations at a subsequent hearing. Separate procedural provisions apply to applications made following the issue of a DAPN.
Under section 32, the court may make a DAPO where it is satisfied that the respondent is aged 18 or over, has been abusive towards a person aged 16 or over to whom they are personally connected, and that the order is necessary and proportionate to protect that person from domestic abuse or the associated risk.
One of the most significant features of DAPOs is the breadth of protection they can provide. Unlike NMOs, which principally prohibit molestation, DAPOs may impose both prohibitions and positive requirements, allowing the court to tailor an order to the circumstances of the case. These wider powers represent an important development in the protective measures available to victims of domestic abuse.
The court has the ability to order:
a. prohibitions on contacting the person requiring protection;
b. restrictions on approaching the protected person or entering specified locations;
c. provisions preventing the respondent from evicting or excluding the protected person from their home;
d. requirements for the respondent to leave or remain away from specified premises;
e. positive requirements, including participation in programmes designed to address abusive behaviour; and
f. electronic monitoring requirements, where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Under section 37, a DAPO ordinarily takes effect on the day on which it is made, unless the court specifies a later date. However, the respondent’s knowledge of the order remains important when considering criminal liability for breach.
Where a DAPO has been made without notice, section 39(2) provides that the respondent commits an offence only for conduct occurring once they were aware of the order’s existence.
DAPOs may remain in force for a specified period, until a specified event occurs, or until further order. There is no general statutory duration, enabling the court to determine the appropriate period of protection according to the specific circumstances.
DAPOs also impose notification requirements on the respondent. Under section 41, the respondent must notify the police of their name, any other names used, and their address within three days of the order being made. Any subsequent changes must also be notified to the police. Failure to comply with these requirements without reasonable excuse may constitute a separate criminal offence under section 43.
Breach of a DAPO without reasonable excuse constitutes a criminal offence under section 39. On summary conviction, the respondent may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, a fine, or both. Whereas, on conviction on indictment, the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Section 39(6) expressly prevents the court from imposing a conditional discharge following conviction for breach of a DAPO. These enforcement provisions underline the seriousness of non-compliance and the importance of ensuring understanding of the terms of the orders.
DAPNs and DAPOs have been piloted since 27 November 2024, initially in Greater Manchester, parts of South London and by the British Transport Police, and subsequently extended to Cleveland and North Wales. The Government has announced that the measures will be rolled out across England and Wales from 25 November 2026.
The introduction of DAPOs represents a significant development in the law relating to domestic abuse. Their availability across different jurisdictions, together with the ability to impose positive requirements and electronic monitoring, provides courts with a more flexible framework for protecting victims.
However, whether DAPOs will ultimately replace NMOs remains to be seen. Although DAPOs are intended to become the principal protective order in domestic abuse cases, NMOs have not been abolished and remain an established means of securing protection under the Family Law Act 1996.
The real question is therefore not whether NMOs will disappear immediately, but whether the broader powers available under DAPOs will result in their becoming the preferred protective measure for practitioners and the courts. The practical operation of the new regime, including its accessibility, effectiveness and enforcement, will be central to that assessment.
Teia Yule
