DAPOs: A new approach to protecting victims of domestic abuse?

Background

Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is intended to provide a shake-up to the law on protective orders for victims of domestic abuse. It is the first major piece of legislation in respect of domestic abuse injunctions since the Family Law Act 1996. The legislation introduces the Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO), a cross-jurisdictional order, intended to provide flexible, effective protection for victims of domestic abuse.

Breaching a DAPO without reasonable excuse, is punishable by imprisonment for up to five  years, a fine or both, and can also be treated as a civil contempt of court.

The full Guidance (“the Guidance”) on Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPNs and DAPOs) is available here.

The Pilot

A pilot programme testing the provisions was rolled out on 27 November 2024 in Greater Manchester, Croydon, Bromley and Sutton and with the British Transport Police. Parts of the North-East joined the pilot in March 2025 and North Wales joined on 28 April 2025. Although initially launched for a one-year period, the pilot has now been extended to March 2026. For the purposes of the pilot, the perpetrator must reside in an area in which the police force is part of the pilot scheme.

The pilot is being overseen by Mrs Justice Knowles, who is the lead judge reporting to the Senior Presiding Judge, Lord Justice Green. The roll-out follows the convening of working groups that developed the rules and guidance for DAPOs across criminal, civil and family courts. The rules and guidance include Practice Direction 36ZG of the Family Procedure Rules, which sets out the applicable procedure for DAPOs in the Family Court during the pilot.

The Basics  

The circumstances in which a court can make a DAPO are set out at section 32, Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The perpetrator must be aged at least 18 and have been abusive to a person aged over 16 to whom they are personally connected to. Section 2 defines “personally connected” to include people who are or were in an intimate relationship, relatives and people who have (or there has been a time when both persons had) a parental relationship to the same child. There is no requirement that the relationship be of a ‘significant duration’ or that the parties have ever lived together, as set out under the Family Law Act 1996 definition of ‘associated persons’.

The court must be satisfied that (a) on the balance of probabilities the perpetrator has been abusive towards the victim to whom they are personally connected and (b) a DAPO is necessary and proportionate to protect the person from domestic abuse, or risk of domestic abuse, carried out by the perpetrator (s32).

A DAPO can be sought on a without notice basis and can be made without notice by the court when it is “just and convenient” to do so (s34(1)). The court must have regard to all the circumstances, with specific regard to the matters set out at s34(3)(a)-(c), which are substantially the same as the circumstances that the court must consider when making ex parte non-molestation orders in accordance with s45(2), Family Law Act 1996.

There is no maximum or minimum duration that a DAPO can be made for, but in practice, DAPOs are being made for periods similar to non-molestation orders; six to 12 months.

Section 35 allows the court to impose via a DAPO any requirement that the court considers necessary to protect the victim. A requirement includes prohibitions or restrictions. The court must consider what requirements are necessary to protect the victim from abusive behaviour (s35(1)). S35(4)-(6) sets out examples of requirements that the court might impose but asserts that the list is not exhaustive.

S35(5) includes example prohibitions akin to occupation orders, such as preventing an individual from returning to an address or requiring an individual to leave an address. There is no express provision for the type of order covered by s40, Family Law Act 1996 (e.g. payment of mortgage / rent) but it would be open to the court to impose such a requirement if necessary to protect the victim.

What’s New?

1. The key difference is the focus on flexibility and the order being ‘cross-jurisdictional’. DAPOs can be applied for and granted in civil, family and criminal courts.
2. DAPOs are based around the concept of ‘domestic abuse’ as defined under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which includes coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological, economic and emotional abuse, as well as physical or sexual abuse and violent or threatening behaviour. The making of a DAPO, unlike a non-molestation order, is not dependent on the concept of ‘molestation’ as defined in case law.
3. Unlike non-molestation orders, it is not just the victim who can make an application. The new legislation allows for any third party, with leave of the court to make an application (section 28 (d)). S28(c) makes provision for the Secretary of State to specify third parties who may apply without seeking leave, however as yet, and for pilot purposes, no such guidance has been issued, and third parties are required to seek leave of the court. This means that NHS, local authority and domestic abuse charity staff are all able to make applications for DAPOs for individuals that they are working with, although for the time being they will require the court’s leave.
4. DAPOs are intended to achieve change, as well as protection for victims. Courts can order perpetrators to attend behavioural change or substance misuse programmes and will direct a ‘responsible person’ to monitor attendance. As part of the DAPO pilot, a triage team operated by the Drive Partnership (a partnership between Respect, Safelives and Social Finance) has been set up. The triage team will be directed by the court to undertake an assessment of the perpetrator’s suitability for behavioural change programmes, with the outcome of this assessment to be provided to the court. If a perpetrator is deemed suitable for a particular programme, the court can mandate attendance within the DAPO, and the court will send a notice to the provider of the programme requiring them to deliver the programme to the perpetrator. The provider will be the named ‘responsible person’ ordered to oversee the perpetrator’s attendance on the programme.
5. The police and courts are required to work together closely to ensure proper enforcement and monitoring. This is most aptly demonstrated by the notification requirements. When a DAPO is made, the perpetrator is required to notify the police of their name and address and keep the police informed of any changes. Failure to do so would put the perpetrator in breach of the DAPO. This allows the police to properly monitor and enforce the order, ensuring effective protection for victims of abuse.
6. If considered necessary and proportionate by the court, a DAPO can also provide for electronic monitoring requirements which may be used to enforce exclusion zones and/or curfews. Electronic monitoring can only be ordered if the perpetrator is present in court so that they can confirm their home address directly to the court(s37(2)) and cannot be ordered for longer than 12 months (s38(5)). Electronic monitoring cannot be imposed if the perpetrator has no fixed abode and s37 requires the consent of any person whose co-operation is required to secure the electronic monitoring requirement – e.g. the homeowner of where a perpetrator lives if home monitoring needs to be installed at the address. Under s37(8), a perpetrator subject to an electronic monitoring requirement is obligated to take the necessary steps to keep the technology in working order and to submit to the fitting or installation of the technology.

Limitations?

Unlike non-molestation orders, there is no provision for the protection of ‘relevant children’ and therefore children cannot be directly protected by a DAPO. At first glance, this seems somewhat at odds with the recognition of children who witness or experience the effects of domestic abuse as victims of domestic abuse (s3, Domestic Abuse Act 2021).

However, s52 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 amends the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1996, such that proceedings under Part 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act are ‘family proceedings’. This means that a judge in the family court or Family Division of the High Court hearing a DAPO application will have the power, by virtue of those proceedings being family proceedings, to make a non-molestation order, section 8 order or even an interim care or supervision order of its own motion, in accordance with s8(4), Children Act 1989 and s63(2), Family Law Act 1996.

Further, s33(1)(a), Domestic Abuse Act 2021 places a requirement on a court hearing a DAPO application to consider the welfare of any person under 18 whose interests it considers relevant to the making of the order. The intention, therefore, is that children are protected indirectly by virtue of protection of the victim – for example, by way of prohibitions against the perpetrator going to places that the victim is likely to be, such as the victim and child’s home or the child’s school.

As such, although DAPOs cannot themselves be used to directly protect children, the legislation has been carefully crafted to ensure that judges have at their disposal a full range of powers to protect child victims of domestic abuse.

Conclusion

Modernisation of the law, surrounding protection of victims of domestic abuse in the family court, was clearly necessary to ensure a move beyond the outdated concept of ‘molestation’ and bring it in line with modern understanding of domestic abuse.

The multi-agency approach and the focus on enforcement, flexibility and rehabilitation is welcome. As ever, resource limitations will be a concern in respect of the provision of behavioural change programmes and capacity for ‘assessments’ of perpetrator suitability.