Introduction: what a restraining order means for you

Restraining orders are one of the most important practical consequences of criminal harassment proceedings. For many defendants, the order imposed by the court can have a greater day-to-day impact than the sentence itself. A fine or community order may come to an end, but a restraining order can control who you may contact, where you may go, and what you may say online for years afterwards.

Many people assume that a restraining order can only be made after someone has been convicted. That is not correct. A criminal court can make a restraining order after conviction, but it can also make one after acquittal if the legal test is met. That can be surprising and frustrating for someone who has just been found not guilty, but the law treats restraining orders as protective rather than punitive.

This article explains how restraining orders work in criminal harassment cases. It covers orders made after conviction, orders made after acquittal, the evidence the court must consider, the kinds of restrictions that may be imposed, what happens if an order is breached, and how an order can later be varied or discharged.

This guide focuses on harassment proceedings. Similar issues can arise in stalking, domestic abuse and other criminal cases, but stalking protection orders, non-molestation orders and civil injunctions are separate topics.

What is a restraining order?

A restraining order is a court order that prohibits a defendant from doing certain things. It is usually made to protect a complainant, although it can also protect other people named in the order where that is necessary. In harassment cases, the purpose is usually to prevent further unwanted contact, pressure, monitoring, intimidation or behaviour that causes alarm or distress.

A restraining order is not the same as bail conditions. Bail conditions apply while a case is ongoing. A restraining order is normally considered at the end of the case, after conviction or acquittal. There is no general power for the criminal court to make an interim restraining order while proceedings are still live, so risk during the case is usually managed through bail conditions or, in more serious cases, remand into custody.

A restraining order is also different from a non-molestation order. A non-molestation order is usually made in the family court and is commonly used in domestic abuse cases involving associated persons. A restraining order is made by a criminal court and breach of it is dealt with as a criminal offence.

In practical terms, a restraining order may prevent a defendant from contacting the protected person directly or indirectly, attending their home or workplace, entering a particular area, or communicating about them online. The terms depend on the facts of the case. The court should not simply impose a standard template without considering what protection is actually needed.

What does the law say?

Restraining orders are closely associated with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but the source of the court's power now depends on whether the order is made after conviction or after acquittal.

Where a defendant is convicted, the power to make a restraining order is found in the Sentencing Act 2020. The court may make an order to protect the victim of the offence, or another person named in the order, from future conduct by the offender which amounts to harassment or causes a fear of violence.

Where a defendant is acquitted, the power remains under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The court may make an order if it considers it necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. The power after acquittal is narrower because it is focused on protection from harassment, not simply fear of violence.

Although this article deals with harassment proceedings, restraining orders are not limited to harassment convictions. A criminal court may make a restraining order in relation to any criminal offence if the statutory test is met. In practice, they commonly arise in harassment, stalking, domestic abuse, assault, malicious communications and public order cases.

The central question is necessity. The court must be satisfied that an order is needed to protect the person named in the order. It is not enough to say that the complainant would feel reassured by one, or that there has been unpleasant conduct in the past. The order is forward-looking. The court must consider whether protection is needed against future conduct.

Restraining orders after conviction

Where a person is convicted of harassment, the court will often be asked to consider a restraining order at sentence. This does not mean that an order is automatic. The prosecution may apply for one, the court may raise the issue of its own initiative, and the defence may oppose the order or argue that its terms should be narrowed.

The court's task is not simply to repeat the bail conditions or impose whatever the prosecution asks for. It must consider whether an order is necessary to protect the complainant or another named person from future harassment or fear of violence. That requires an evidence-based assessment.

The facts of the conviction will usually be highly relevant. If the defendant has been convicted of repeated unwanted messages, attending an address, contacting friends or family, or continuing communication after being told to stop, the court may conclude that an order is needed to prevent further contact. The more persistent or intrusive the behaviour, the more likely it is that the court will consider an order necessary.

Even so, conviction does not remove the need for careful drafting. A defendant may accept that there should be no direct contact but object to a wide exclusion zone that would prevent them from going to work, visiting family or using an ordinary route through town. A term prohibiting all third-party contact may be excessive where there are legitimate practical arrangements to manage, such as child contact, property collection or ongoing civil proceedings.

The defence should consider not only whether an order should be made, but whether each proposed term is properly justified. A restraining order can affect housing, employment, family relationships and access to children. The court must balance protection with proportionality.

Restraining orders after acquittal

The power to make a restraining order after acquittal often surprises defendants. A person may be found not guilty of harassment and still leave court subject to a restraining order.

That does not mean the court can impose an order simply because the prosecution failed to prove its case. An acquittal matters. The defendant has not been convicted. The order cannot be used as a substitute punishment or as a way of imposing consequences because the court suspects that something may have happened. The court must apply the statutory test and consider whether an order is necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant.

The standard of proof for a restraining order after acquittal is civil rather than criminal. The court is not deciding whether the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is deciding whether, on the evidence before it, an order is necessary for protection. This is why an order may be made even though the criminal charge has not been proved.

This is a sensitive area. The defence will usually want to know what factual basis the prosecution relies upon. If the defendant has been acquitted because the prosecution evidence was rejected, it may be difficult to justify an order based on the same allegations. If the case ended because the prosecution offered no evidence, the court may still have power to consider an order, but there must be evidence to justify it. The defence is entitled to make representations, and where important facts are disputed, the court may need to consider whether evidence should be called.

Orders after acquittal are often sought where the prosecution accepts that the criminal case cannot proceed but says there remains a risk of further harassment. For example, there may be evidence of continued unwanted contact after the original allegation, a history of difficult communications, or concerns that the end of the case may trigger further contact. Whether that is enough will depend on the facts. The court should not make an order as a matter of routine.

What must the court consider?

The court should approach a restraining order by asking whether it is necessary, proportionate, evidence-based and clearly drafted. These safeguards matter because breach of the order is itself a serious criminal offence.

The first question is necessity. Is there a real need to protect the person named in the order from future harassment or fear of violence? Past behaviour may be relevant, but the order is concerned with future risk. It should not be imposed simply to mark disapproval of what has happened before.

The second question is proportionality. Even if some order is necessary, the terms should go no further than required. A complete ban on entering a large area may be disproportionate if a smaller exclusion zone around a particular address would be enough. A ban on all indirect contact may be too broad if the parties need to communicate through solicitors, a parenting app or a family member for limited practical purposes.

The third question is clarity. The defendant must know exactly what is prohibited. Vague wording creates obvious problems. Terms such as "do not annoy", "do not upset" or "do not cause distress" may be too uncertain unless attached to specific conduct. A well-drafted order should be clear enough for the defendant, the protected person, the police and the court to understand without argument.

The fourth question is practicality. If the defendant and protected person live close to one another, work near one another, share childcare responsibilities or attend the same community spaces, the terms need to reflect that reality.

Where children are involved, particular care is needed. A restraining order should not accidentally make lawful and appropriate child contact impossible. It should also avoid conflict with family court orders unless the criminal court has carefully considered the position. In some cases, carefully worded exceptions are needed for contact through solicitors, the family court, an agreed third party or a recognised child contact service.

What can a restraining order prohibit?

A restraining order can only impose prohibitions. It cannot require the defendant to take positive steps such as attending counselling, completing a course, apologising, handing over property, paying money or using electronic monitoring. Those issues may sometimes be dealt with in other ways, but they are not proper terms of a restraining order.

Common prohibitions include not contacting the protected person directly or indirectly; not attending their home, workplace or place of education; not entering a defined geographical area; not posting about them online; not asking others to contact them; not approaching them in public; and not using false accounts or third-party accounts to communicate.

Those examples are common, but they should not be copied into every case without thought. The order must be tailored to the facts. A term prohibiting online posts may be appropriate where the allegation involved social media, but unnecessary in a case about unwanted visits. An exclusion zone may be appropriate where the defendant repeatedly attended an address, but excessive where the case involved telephone messages only.

The wording should also make any exceptions clear. If the parties have children, the order might allow contact through solicitors, family court proceedings, a parenting app, a child contact centre or a named third party. If there are ongoing civil proceedings, the order may need to allow communication through lawyers or as required by the court. Without sensible exceptions, defendants may find themselves trapped between competing legal obligations.

How long can a restraining order last?

A restraining order may last for a fixed period or until further order. A fixed period might be six months, one year, two years, five years or another period considered appropriate. An order made "until further order" has no fixed end date and remains in force unless and until it is varied or discharged by the court.

The length should be no longer than necessary. In some cases, a short order is sufficient to allow emotions to settle after a relationship breakdown, neighbour dispute or trial. In other cases, particularly where there has been prolonged harassment, repeated breaches, obsessive behaviour or a clear risk of further contact, a longer order may be justified.

The court should not impose an indefinite order simply because it is convenient. If the prosecution seeks an order until further order, the defence should consider whether a fixed term would be more proportionate.

A defendant who receives a custodial sentence should not assume that the order only begins on release. A restraining order can take effect from the day it is made. That means contact from prison, whether by phone, letter, email, social media or through another person, may breach the order if prohibited.

The protected person's views

The protected person's views are important, but they are not always decisive. The court should usually know whether the person to be protected wants an order, what terms they seek and how long they believe the order should last.

In some cases, the complainant strongly wants protection and has clear reasons for the terms requested. In others, they may not want an order at all. They may wish to continue a relationship, manage child contact, maintain a workplace connection or avoid further court involvement. The court must take those views seriously.

If a protected person freely and clearly wants contact, the criminal court should be cautious about imposing an order that makes ordinary contact impossible. Adults have autonomy, including the right to make personal decisions others may regard as unwise. However, if there is evidence that the protected person's position is not truly free, for example because of pressure, fear or coercion, the court may need to examine the position carefully.

From a defence perspective, accurate information about the protected person's position can be important. The court should not be invited to make, refuse, vary or discharge an order on the basis of assumption or speculation.

Challenging a restraining order

A proposed restraining order can be challenged in several ways. Sometimes the defence position is that no order is necessary. In other cases, the defence may accept that some order is appropriate but argue that the proposed terms are too wide.

A defendant may challenge the factual basis for the order. This is particularly important after acquittal. If the prosecution relies on evidence that was not tested at trial, previous allegations, hearsay material, police intelligence or disputed incidents, the defence should consider whether the court can properly rely on it and whether further evidence is required.

A defendant may also challenge necessity. The court should be asked why protection is needed now, what future conduct is feared, and why less restrictive measures would not be sufficient. If there has been no contact for a long period, if the parties now live far apart, or if there are already family court orders in place, those matters may be relevant.

The terms themselves may be challenged as disproportionate or unclear. A common issue is an exclusion zone that is too broad. Another is a term prohibiting contact with unnamed or uncertain groups of people. Orders should usually identify the protected person or defined group clearly. They should not be drafted to protect the public at large.

The defence can also suggest alternative wording. Rather than opposing a no-contact order entirely, it may be sensible to propose an exception for communication through solicitors or a family court-approved channel. Rather than accepting a town-wide exclusion zone, it may be better to propose a defined boundary around a specific address.

Breach of a restraining order

Breach of a restraining order is a separate criminal offence. It is not treated as a minor technical matter simply because the original offence was harassment or because the contact seemed harmless. The court will usually take the view that an order of the court has been disobeyed.

A breach may involve direct contact, such as a message, phone call or visit. It may also involve indirect contact through friends, relatives, new social media accounts, gifts, comments on public posts, or messages passed through children. In some cases, merely entering a prohibited area can amount to a breach, even if the protected person is not seen.

The offence is committed where the defendant does something prohibited by the order without reasonable excuse. A genuine emergency may provide an explanation. Accidentally encountering the protected person in a public place may not be a breach if the defendant leaves promptly and does not approach them. However, deliberately replying to contact from the protected person is risky. The order binds the defendant, not the protected person. If the order says there must be no contact, the safest position is usually not to reply and to take legal advice.

The maximum sentence for breach is five years' imprisonment. Many breaches do not result in sentences anywhere near that level, but the risk is real, particularly where there are repeated breaches, deliberate attempts to evade the order, intimidation, further harassment or conduct causing serious distress. A breach may also be charged alongside new offences arising from the same behaviour, such as further harassment, stalking, malicious communications or assault.

Anyone subject to a restraining order should treat it seriously from the moment it is made. If the wording is unclear or impractical, the answer is not to ignore it. The proper course is to seek advice about variation or discharge.

Variation or discharge

A restraining order is not necessarily permanent, even if it is made until further order. The defendant, prosecutor or any person named in the order may apply to the court that made the order for it to be varied or discharged.

Variation may be appropriate where circumstances have changed. For example, the parties may need workable arrangements for child contact. One person may have moved house. A workplace restriction may have become impractical. A family court order may have changed. The protected person may now wish to vary the order, or the defendant may need a limited exception to comply with another legal obligation.

Discharge may be appropriate where the order is no longer necessary. The passage of time, lack of further incidents, changed living arrangements, completion of other proceedings, or the protected person's freely expressed wishes may all be relevant. However, the court will not discharge an order simply because the defendant finds it inconvenient. The central question remains whether the order is still necessary for protection.

A variation or discharge application should be prepared carefully. The court will usually want evidence explaining what has changed and why the existing terms are no longer necessary or proportionate.

Evidence that may help your case

The evidence needed will depend on whether the defendant is opposing the order entirely, seeking narrower terms, or applying later to vary or discharge it.

Useful evidence may include full message histories, call logs, social media records, evidence of mutual contact, proof of changed address, employment information, childcare arrangements, existing family court orders, maps showing proposed exclusion zones, evidence of legitimate reasons to attend certain places, and statements explaining practical difficulties with proposed terms.

Context is often critical. A screenshot of one message may look troubling in isolation but very different when placed within a long exchange. A proposed exclusion zone may sound reasonable until it is shown to include the defendant's workplace, a family member's home or a child's school. A no-contact order may be straightforward where the parties have no ongoing connection, but more complex where they have children or unresolved property issues.

The defence should also scrutinise the proposed wording. Ambiguity is dangerous. A defendant should not be left guessing what they are allowed to do.

FAQs

Can I get a restraining order even if I am found not guilty?

Yes. A criminal court can make a restraining order after acquittal if it considers the order necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. The court must have evidence to justify the order. It should not be imposed automatically.

Is a restraining order a punishment?

No. A restraining order is intended to be protective and preventative. It is not supposed to be punitive. However, in practical terms it can feel highly restrictive, and breach is a criminal offence.

Can the order stop me contacting someone who still wants to speak to me?

Yes, depending on the terms. The order binds you, not the protected person. If they contact you first, you may still commit a breach by replying. If contact is genuinely wanted and appropriate, you should seek advice about variation rather than relying on informal agreement.

Can a restraining order affect child contact?

Yes. The court must be careful where children are involved. An order should not make appropriate contact with a child impossible unless that restriction is necessary. Where there are family court proceedings or child arrangements, the wording needs particular care.

Can I be banned from an entire town?

A wide geographical exclusion zone is possible in some cases, but it must be necessary and proportionate. The court should consider whether a narrower restriction would be sufficient. If an exclusion zone is imposed, it should be clearly defined.

How long does a restraining order last?

It can last for a fixed period or until further order. If it is made until further order, it does not expire automatically. An application must be made to vary or discharge it.

What happens if I breach the order accidentally?

The offence requires a breach without reasonable excuse. Accidental contact may be treated differently from deliberate contact, especially if you leave immediately and do not communicate. However, you should take advice quickly. Do not assume that the police or court will regard the breach as harmless.

Can the order be changed later?

Yes. The defendant, prosecution or a person named in the order may apply to vary or discharge it. The court will consider whether the order remains necessary and whether the proposed change is appropriate.

How we can help

Restraining orders require careful handling. They are often discussed at the end of a difficult hearing, when emotions are high and the defendant may be relieved, disappointed or exhausted. That is precisely when clear advice matters.

We can help by considering whether an order is necessary at all, challenging the evidence relied upon, making representations about proportionality, proposing workable alternative wording, and ensuring that any order is clear enough to be understood and obeyed. Where an order has already been made, we can advise on alleged breaches, variation applications and discharge applications.

In harassment proceedings, the right approach is rarely to ignore the issue or simply accept whatever order is suggested. A properly drafted order can provide clear boundaries and reduce future risk. A poorly drafted order can create confusion, unnecessary restrictions and avoidable breach allegations. Our role is to protect your position while helping the court understand what is fair, lawful and workable.

Next steps

If the prosecution is asking for a restraining order, or if you are already subject to one, it is important to take advice before doing anything that could make the situation worse. Do not contact the protected person to discuss the order. Do not assume that an informal agreement overrides the court order. Do not ignore unclear or impractical terms.

We can advise you on restraining orders in harassment proceedings, including orders after conviction, orders after acquittal, alleged breaches, and applications to vary or discharge an existing order. We can help you understand the risks, protect your position and put forward clear, practical arguments to the court.