Introduction: what breaching a restraining order means for you

Being accused of breaching a restraining order is serious because it means that a court has told you to do something and you haven’t taken the court seriously. Judges do not like that. A restraining order is a court order and breaching it without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence in its own right. Even where the original case has finished, the order can continue to control what you may do, where you may go and who you may contact.

This guide explains what breach of a restraining order means, what the prosecution must prove, how the defence of reasonable excuse may arise, what happens after an allegation is made and the sentences that can be imposed.

What is a restraining order?

A restraining order is an order made by a criminal court telling a defendant that they must not do certain things. Most orders prohibit contact with a named person. Some also prohibit contact through third parties, attending particular addresses, entering a defined area, posting about the protected person online, or approaching them in person.

Restraining orders are intended to be protective rather than punitive. The court makes the order because it considers that protection is needed for the future. The order may last for a fixed period, such as two years, or until further order, meaning it continues indefinitely unless varied or discharged by the court.

Restraining orders can be made after conviction. They can also be made after acquittal in some circumstances. That sometimes surprises defendants. A person can be found not guilty of the original allegation but still leave court subject to a restraining order if the court considers the statutory test is met. The important point for breach cases is that, once the order is in force, it must be complied with unless and until it is varied or discharged by the court.

You can read our detailed guide to restraining orders for more information.

What does it mean to breach a restraining order?

A breach occurs when a person who is subject to a restraining order does something the order prohibits, without reasonable excuse. The allegation is about the order itself. The prosecution does not have to prove a fresh harassment offence, a fresh assault or a fresh threat of violence. A single prohibited message may be enough, depending on the wording of the order.

Common examples include sending text messages, emails or social media messages; calling the protected person; asking a friend or relative to pass on a message; commenting on public social media posts; attending the protected person’s home, workplace or school; driving past an address in breach of an exclusion zone; or using a new account or withheld number to make contact.

Not all breaches are clear and obvious. In some cases, a protected person may see a public social media post, for example, and assume it is an attempt to intimidate them. For example, we had a client who was accused of breaching an order when he posted a video of himself running and included a comment at one point that said, “looking good”, which his ex-partner took as a reference to herself. The police took that seriously and prosecuted! Even if breach proceedings are decided in your favour, they can still be extremely frustrating, time consuming, and expensive.

Some cases are more complicated. The order may allow contact through solicitors, social services or the family court, or contain an exception for child contact or emergencies. There may be a dispute about whether a message was really “contact”, whether a location fell within the prohibited area, or whether the defendant knew that the protected person would be present. These details matter.

What must the prosecution prove?

In a breach case, the prosecution will usually need to prove that a restraining order was in force, that the defendant was subject to it, that the defendant did something prohibited by the order, and that there was no reasonable excuse for doing so. The standard of proof is the criminal standard: the court must be sure that the defendant is guilty.

The first question is often straightforward. The prosecution will produce the order. The defence should check the dates, the exact terms, whether the order was varied, and whether the alleged breach happened while the relevant term was still in force. It is not enough to rely on a general impression that contact was banned. The wording matters.

The second question is whether the alleged conduct actually breached the order. If the order bans direct or indirect contact, the wording is broad. If contact is only permitted through solicitors or the family court, communication outside those routes is likely to be a breach. If the order contains an exclusion zone, the precise boundaries may become important. Vague or impractical wording may be relevant to the defence.

The third question is reasonable excuse. The legislation recognises that there may be circumstances in which a person technically does something prohibited but has a lawful answer to the allegation. That does not mean every explanation is a reasonable excuse. The court will look carefully at what happened, why it happened, whether there were lawful alternatives and whether the response was proportionate.

The defence of reasonable excuse

Reasonable excuse is a statutory defence to a breach allegation. The defendant has an evidential burden, which means there must be some evidence capable of raising the issue. Once that has happened, it is for the prosecution to prove so that the court is sure that there was no reasonable excuse.

What amounts to a reasonable excuse depends on the facts. A genuine emergency may be relevant, particularly where there is immediate risk to a child or another person and no realistic alternative. Accidental contact may also be relevant, for example unexpectedly seeing the protected person in public and leaving immediately.

The court is likely to take a much stricter view where contact is deliberate, repeated, emotional, hostile, manipulative or unnecessary. “I wanted to explain myself”, “I needed closure”, “they contacted me first”, or “I thought they would not mind” is unlikely to be accepted as a reasonable excuse. A restraining order is not a private agreement between two people. It is a court order. The protected person cannot simply waive it by invitation, and the defendant cannot rely on the fact that the protected person gave permission for contact in breach of the order.

Child contact issues are a common source of breach allegations. If the order allows communication through solicitors, social services or the family court, the safest course is to use those permitted channels. If those routes are inconvenient, slow or expensive, that will not create a reasonable excuse for direct contact. Genuine child welfare emergencies need careful evidence and analysis.

What if the protected person contacted you first?

This is one of the most common misunderstandings. A protected person may send a message, call, attend your address or ask to meet – they are not subject to the order! That can create a difficult situation, especially where there are shared children, but their contact does not permit you to respond in breach of the order. If an order has been made against you and the protected person insists on contacting you then you should take screenshots to prove what is happening and report it to the police so they can speak to the protected person on your behalf. Repeated contact may also form a basis for an application to remove the order.

The fact that the protected person contacted you first may be relevant. It may help explain the context. It may affect culpability or sentence. In some cases, it may form part of a reasonable excuse argument. But it is not a simple defence. If the order says that you must not contact them, replying will still be a breach if there is nothing else to bring it within a reasonable excuse. If the order causes practical problems, the proper route is usually to apply to vary it, not to ignore it or reach your own informal arrangement.

What happens after an allegation of breach?

The police may arrest a person suspected of breaching a restraining order, particularly where there is concern about risk, repeated contact, intimidation, domestic abuse, stalking or escalation. The suspect may be interviewed under caution. In some cases the police may seize phones, download messages, obtain call data, take screenshots, speak to witnesses and review CCTV or doorbell footage.

After investigation, the case may be charged. Because breach of a restraining order is triable either way, it may begin in the magistrates’ court and either remain there or be sent to the Crown Court. Allocation will depend on seriousness, risk, previous convictions, related offences and available sentencing powers.

The prosecution may also consider charging additional offences. If the same conduct amounts to harassment, stalking, assault, criminal damage, malicious communications or another offence, the defendant may face both the breach allegation and the additional charge. The CPS guidance makes clear that alleged breaches should be reviewed to consider whether further offences have also been committed.

Bail conditions are also important. A person accused of breach may be released on police bail or court bail with no-contact conditions. Those conditions are separate from the restraining order and breaching them can have immediate consequences, including arrest and remand.

Possible sentences for breach of a restraining order

Breach of a restraining order carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. That does not mean every breach leads to prison, but custody is a real possibility in serious cases. The Sentencing Council guideline for breach of a protective order applies to adult offenders sentenced for breach of restraining and non-molestation orders.

The court assesses seriousness by looking at culpability and harm. A very serious or persistent breach will be treated more seriously than a minor breach or one just short of reasonable excuse. Harm includes distress, fear, disruption and any wider impact on the protected person.

Factors that can make a case more serious include repeated breaches, attempts to intimidate or control the protected person, use of threats, attending a home address, contact involving children, contact designed to evade the order, breaches committed while on bail or licence, and offending in a domestic abuse or stalking context. A breach that causes the protected person to leave home, change routines or feel unsafe is likely to be treated seriously.

Mitigation may include a long period of compliance before the breach, genuine misunderstanding, very limited or accidental contact, immediate steps to withdraw from contact, remorse, mental health difficulties, or evidence that the protected person initiated contact. Mitigation does not erase the breach, but it may affect whether the sentence is a fine, community order, suspended sentence or immediate custody.

Where the court is dealing with the breach, it may also vary or discharge the restraining order. That does not happen automatically. If the order is causing genuine practical difficulty, an application to vary it should be properly prepared with evidence and realistic proposed wording. It is far better to seek a lawful variation than to create a breach allegation by trying to work around unclear or unworkable terms.

Evidence that may help your case

The most important evidence is usually the order itself and the complete communication history. Screenshots can be useful, but they may be selective or incomplete. Phone records, emails, WhatsApp exports, social media data, location evidence, CCTV, doorbell footage, witness accounts and family court documents may all be relevant.

If reasonable excuse is raised, the evidence should explain why the conduct happened and why lawful alternatives were not used. If the contact was accidental, evidence of where you were going, why you were there, what you knew and what you did immediately afterwards may be important.

Defence strategies

A careful defence starts with the wording of the order. Does it clearly prohibit the alleged conduct? Was the order in force? Had it been varied? Was the defendant aware of the relevant terms? Was the alleged contact direct or indirect contact within the meaning of the order? Is the prosecution relying on complete evidence or only selected messages?

The next step is to analyse reasonable excuse. That involves more than giving an explanation. It requires evidence, context and a clear account of why the conduct occurred. In some cases, the correct approach may be to contest the allegation entirely. In others, the strongest outcome may come from careful mitigation, addressing risk and asking the court to sentence proportionately.

Where there are ongoing practical problems, such as child contact, shared property or unavoidable work-related contact, the defence may need to consider whether a variation application should be made. The aim is not merely to deal with the immediate allegation, but to reduce the risk of future breach allegations arising from unclear or unrealistic terms.

How we can help

Breach of a restraining order cases require careful, practical advice. The consequences can be significant, but many cases turn on detail: the precise wording of the order, the exact conduct alleged, whether there was a reasonable excuse and how the evidence is presented.

Our solicitors can advise you on the allegation, review the order, analyse the evidence, prepare you for interview or court, and represent you in negotiations, trial or sentence. We can also advise on whether the order itself should be varied so that necessary arrangements can be dealt with lawfully.

If you have been arrested, charged or told that you are under investigation for breaching a restraining order, it is important to get advice before making further contact with anyone named in the order. What feels like a practical or harmless message can quickly become the evidence in a criminal case.