What does Stephen Bear's case tell us about when restraining orders can be made and how they can be breached?
A recent case involving reality television personality Stephen Bear illustrates how seriously the courts treat restraining orders. Bear was originally given a five-year order in 2023 after being convicted of voyeurism and disclosing private sexual photographs and films involving his former partner, Georgia Harrison. According to the BBC, he later admitted breaching that order through social media posts about her. On 6 August 2026, Chelmsford Crown Court sentenced him to 16 months' imprisonment and imposed a new restraining order lasting until further order.
The case is unusual because of the people involved, but the legal principles are not. Restraining orders are made every day in cases involving former partners, neighbours, colleagues and even family members. They can impose strict limits on otherwise lawful conduct, and a breach is a fresh criminal offence.
What is a restraining order?
A restraining order is a protective order made by a criminal court. Its purpose is to prevent future harassment or conduct that may cause fear of violence. It is not intended to add punishment for past behaviour, although it is usually made at the same hearing as sentence.
The order is directed at the defendant. It does not place obligations on the person it protects, which is important as those subject to the orders frequently find themselves in trouble when they are contacted by the other person and they respond!
The court must identify why protection is needed and tailor the prohibitions to that risk. This means that there should be a good reason for imposing each restriction and that restriction should have a clear objective behind it. An order should not be made simply because it seems reassuring or because one was requested without a proper evidential basis.
When can a criminal court make one?
Following conviction
The Sentencing Act 2020 gives criminal courts the power to make a restraining order when dealing with somebody convicted of any criminal offence. The power is not confined to harassment or stalking cases. An order may follow on from a conviction for assault, criminal damage, a sexual offence, malicious communications or another offence if the necessary protective purpose is established.
The court must consider the future risk and there must be an evidence-based reason to conclude that without the order there is a genuine risk to somebody. The protected person's views are important, but the legal decision belongs to the court. The court may act on an application by the prosecution or of its own initiative, and the defendant must have an opportunity to put across his views whether they are that the order should not be made at all or that some of the restrictions within it should be different.
Following acquittal
More surprisingly, section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 allows a criminal court to make a restraining order after a defendant has been acquitted. The test is whether the order is necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. Unlike an order following conviction, the wording does not separately refer to protection from fear of violence.
An order on acquittal does not reverse the verdict or amount to a conviction. It is a civil, preventive measure and the court applies the civil standard of proof, i.e. is it more likely than not that an order is necessary to protect some other person, when deciding whether to impose an order on acquittal.
The judge must identify a proper factual basis, hear any disputed evidence when necessary and give the defendant a fair opportunity to respond. An acquittal order can also be made where the prosecution offers no evidence and a formal not-guilty verdict or dismissal follows.
What can a restraining order prohibit?
First, we should say that a restraining order can only stop you from doing things, it cannot require you to do anything.
The terms depend on the risks shown in the particular case. An order is likely to prohibit direct or indirect contact, meaning messages sent directly or through another person, and approaching the protected person’s home home or workplace. It may also prevent the defendant entering a clearly defined area or referring to the protected person on social media. A prohibition can restrict conduct that would otherwise be lawful. That is why the wording matters so much.
The orders can be very specific. In one recent case, our client accepted he would be subject to a restraining order but argued that the proposed terms of the order would effectively prevent him getting from one side of his town to the other and would prevent him taking the bus home from work. The court ultimately ordered that he could enter one of the restricted roads but only to cross the road at a specified point and when travelling on a bus.
Every requirement in the order must be necessary, proportionate, practical and clear enough for the defendant to understand exactly what is forbidden. The court should also consider legitimate arrangements involving children, shared property or unavoidable professional contact so that the order does not create unnecessary confusion or set a defendant up to fail.
The order may last for a fixed period or until a court brings it to an end. It will take effect immediately upon being made even when the defendant is also sent to prison. If circumstances later change, the prosecution, the defendant or a person named in the order may ask the court that made it to vary or discharge it.
What counts as a breach?
The basic question is whether the defendant, without reasonable excuse, did something prohibited by the order. It is not necessary for the alleged breach to amount to a fresh course of harassment. One message, visit or online post can be enough if it falls within a prohibition. Indirect contact can also count where the order covers it, including communication through friends, relatives or online accounts.
In our earlier example of the client banned from certain roads except to cross that road or while travelling on a bus. He would be in breach of his order if he chose to walk along the length of the road away from his specified crossing point; however, if he were on a bus that broke down then he would have a reasonable excuse for walking along that road.
We always advise clients with orders affecting their social media use to be extra careful. In one case, we had a client accused of harassing a former partner by posting a series of photographs about his year that ended with a slide displaying the word “boo!” The complainant alleged that slide was aimed directly at her and nobody else even though there was no mention of her in any of the images and she did not appear in any of them. It’s easy to see how somebody could quickly be accused of breaching their order on social media even if that was never their intention. It’s thus extremely important to ensure that the wording of the order is clear and unambiguous to prevent accusations being made.
Is there a defence?
The statutory defence is reasonable excuse. The defendant must first raise evidence capable of supporting that issue; the prosecution must then disprove the excuse beyond reasonable doubt. What is reasonable is highly fact sensitive. An unavoidable accidental encounter or action taken in a genuine emergency may be very different from planned contact dressed up as coincidence. Disagreeing with the order, believing it is unfair or wanting to apologise does not permit somebody to ignore it.
Again, defendants should take extreme care. Another of our clients found himself accused of breaching an order when he attended a running event only to find his ex-partner was also there. He left immediately but not before he had been spotted. To him it was a pure coincidence, to her it was a sign of him continuing to stalk her in breach of his restraining order. Fortunately, he was able to produce witnesses who had encouraged him to attend the event and thus show that his reason for being there was to run with his friends not to manufacture an encounter with his ex-partner.
Although it was mentioned earlier, it bears repeating that a defendant cannot assume that an invitation from the protected person cancels the order. It does not! Contact initiated by that person may be relevant to reasonable excuse or mitigation, depending on all the circumstances, but the responsibility for complying remains with the person bound by the order. Where renewed contact is genuinely wanted, the safe course is for the protected person to apply to end the order.
How seriously do courts treat a breach?
Breach of a restraining order is an either-way offence, meaning that it can be dealt with in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The Sentencing Council guideline has an overall range from a fine to four years' custody. The statutory maximum remains available in an exceptionally serious case, but prison is not automatic.
The court first assesses culpability and harm. A very serious or persistent breach falls into the highest culpability category; a deliberate breach occupies the middle ground; and a minor breach, or one just short of reasonable excuse, is lower. Harm ranges from little or no distress to very serious harm or distress. For the most serious combination, the guideline gives a starting point of two years' custody and a range of one to four years. At the other end of the scale, a fine or community order may be appropriate.
The sentence can increase where the breach occurred soon after the order was made, formed part of a pattern of disobeying court orders, involved a further offence, occurred in a domestic abuse context, affected children or forced the protected person to leave home. A long period of earlier compliance, a prompt admission and contact not initiated by the offender may reduce seriousness, although each requires careful examination. Credit may also be given for a guilty plea.
If the same conduct also amounts to stalking, harassment, assault, criminal damage or another offence, the prosecution may charge that offence as well as the breach. When dealing with the case, the court may also vary or discharge the existing order. In Bear's case, the reported result was both immediate imprisonment and a new order lasting until further order. The message is straightforward: persistent online conduct can be treated just as seriously as repeated calls, unwanted visits or face-to-face contact.
A conviction also becomes part of the defendant's criminal record. It may be relied upon in a later case as evidence of a failure to comply with court orders and can make the consequences of any further breach more serious.
What should you do if accused of a breach?
Obtain a copy of the order and read its precise terms before giving an account. Do not contact the protected person to explain, apologise or ask them to withdraw the allegation. Preserve messages, call records, social media data, location information and anything else that may establish what happened; deleting material can make the position worse. If an encounter was accidental, leave as soon as it is safe and make a contemporaneous note of the circumstances.
Early advice can identify whether the conduct was actually prohibited, whether reasonable excuse is properly raised, what evidence should be secured and how any interview should be approached. If the order has become unworkable because of child arrangements, employment, shared property or another genuine change, the answer is a formal application to vary it, not informal self-help.
How Chetwode can help
An allegation of breaching a restraining order can move quickly from a disputed message or unexpected encounter to arrest, charge and a real risk of custody. Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors can advise on the wording and validity of the order, represent you during the investigation and court proceedings, test the prosecution evidence, present any reasonable excuse and ensure that mitigation is put clearly before the court. We can also advise on applications to vary or discharge an order where circumstances have genuinely changed.
If you are subject to a restraining order or have been accused of breaching one, contact us promptly. Careful advice at the outset can prevent further difficulties and make sure the case is dealt with on the correct legal and factual basis.