The High Court has rejected a man’s appeal against an interim barring order that required him to leave the family home and restricted his return. Mr Justice Max Barrett, delivering judgment on 21 October 2020, declined to vary the Circuit Court order.
The appeal concerned an order made on 25 November 2019 under section 8 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The High Court considered whether there were reasonable grounds to believe there was an immediate risk of significant harm to the applicant or a dependent person, and whether a protection order would be insufficient. It held that the statutory test was met and found no legal reason the order could not be made, or flaw in its form.
The parties’ evidence conflicted. The applicant described a pattern of intimidating and aggressive behaviour, including episodes that left her afraid for her safety and that of the children. The man denied her allegations and argued that she was acting maliciously to remove him from the home. After hearing both parties, the judge preferred the applicant’s account, citing her apparent fear, the sequence of events leading her to seek help and court protection, and his assessment of her evidence and demeanour.
The Circuit Court order required the man to leave the family home and prohibited him from entering it, subject to specified arrangements for collecting the children from school and leaving when the applicant returned, no later than 6pm. It also prohibited violence, threats, molestation and conduct that put the applicant in fear, including attending near or watching her residence. The High Court accepted that limited contact for school collections could be consistent with an immediate risk finding, given the nature of the alleged harm and the need to bring the children home.
The judgment noted that two criminal prosecutions relating to alleged breaches of a protection order were pending; it did not determine those proceedings. It also addressed reports that the man had sometimes parked in a way that blocked the driveway. The judge said that issue was not for resolution in this appeal, but reminded him that the order prohibited conduct that put the applicant in fear near her residence.
The appeal was unsuccessful. The interim barring order remains in place without variation.