This guide is maintained as a current resource for September 2026 and covers only the laws of England and Wales. Information is for general guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
Comprehensive guide to how courts in England and Wales treat threats of violence in protective order applications, explaining standards of proof, evidential requirements, interim orders, risk assessments and practical considerations when seeking non‑molestation or similar injunctions based on risk of harm.
When individuals apply for protective orders in the family or civil courts - such as non‑molestation orders, domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) or similar injunctions - allegations of threats of violence are often central to the case. Courts must assess not only past conduct but also the risk of future harm, including threats that create fear or alarm. This article explains how threats of violence are evaluated in order applications, what standards and evidence courts consider, how risk influences outcomes, and what practical steps applicants and their representatives should take when presenting these cases.
Legal Basis for Considering Threats of Violence
Under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA), courts have powers to grant protective injunctions such as non‑molestation orders to prevent harm or the risk of harm. “Molestation” in this context includes not only actual violence but also threats of violence and other conduct that causes fear, harassment or distress. Courts assess these threats within the broader statutory framework for protections and injunctions.
Other civil protective orders, such as DVPOs (issued under the Crime and Security Act 2010) and stalking protection orders, similarly permit courts to grant protections when there are reasonable grounds to believe violence or threats have occurred or that a risk exists.
Standard of Proof and Legal Thresholds
Civil Standard: Balance of Probabilities
For family law orders such as non‑molestation or occupation orders, the court generally applies the civil standard of proof - the balance of probabilities - when assessing the evidence. This means the judge must be reasonably satisfied that it is more likely than not that the threats of violence occurred and that the order is necessary for protection.
In some orders made by or associated with criminal courts (for example DVPOs), evidence of threats of violence may be considered within domestic abuse risk assessments presented by police or prosecutors, who also rely on the balance of probabilities to justify the need for immediate or interim protections.
Criminal Contexts and Related Orders
In criminal proceedings, restraining orders (which may be imposed following conviction or acquittal) are designed to prevent conduct that will cause a fear of violence. For example, restraining orders can be made to protect victims from future violence or harassment, and this requires an evaluation of threats and risk in the context of the offence and wider behaviour.
How Courts Evaluate Threats of Violence
Detailed Evidence and Supporting Statements
Courts rely heavily on witness statements and supporting evidence from the applicant and other sources to assess threats of violence. Applicants should set out specific incidents with dates, times and descriptions of behaviour, and detail how these actions caused fear or may be repeated without protection.
Threats of violence may be demonstrated through:
- Written communications (texts, emails, messages).
- Witness testimony from third parties.
- Records of police reports, 999 calls or prior interventions.
The court evaluates whether these threats contribute to a real and immediate risk of harm to the applicant or relevant children.
Context and Cumulative Conduct
Threats are rarely considered in isolation. The court examines the broader context including any pattern of intimidation, harassment, coercive behaviour or violence. Even where violence has not yet occurred, ongoing threats can support the need for protection if they have a tangible impact on the applicant's sense of safety.
For example, in family injunctions under the FLA, the court will consider threats of violence as part of the “molestation” behaviour. This includes conduct causing alarm or distress, which may justify an order to prevent escalation.
Interim and Without Notice Orders
Urgent Protection Based on Threats of Violence
In urgent cases where there is an immediate risk of harm or threats of violence, courts can grant orders without notice (also known as ex parte). This allows the applicant to obtain immediate protection before the respondent is informed. The applicant must persuade the court that without such an order there is a risk of significant harm.
The threshold for an interim order often focuses on the immediacy and severity of the threat, and courts exercise caution, weighing protection needs against the rights of the absent respondent.
Role of Risk Assessments
Risk assessments, particularly those prepared by police or specialist domestic abuse professionals, play a crucial role in court considerations. These assessments typically analyse the likelihood of future violence and other forms of harm to the applicant or children, and help inform judicial decisions on whether a protective order is necessary and proportionate.
Interplay with Criminal Evidence and Orders
When a protective order application is part of or concurrent with criminal proceedings, courts may consider evidence from those proceedings - including allegations of threats of violence - as part of the broader context. For example, after a conviction or acquittal, criminal courts can impose a restraining order if it appears necessary to protect a victim from conduct that will cause fear of violence.
Threats of violence that form part of domestic abuse allegations may inform both the need for injunctions and the conditions of restraining orders, especially when the court is satisfied that protection is necessary on the evidence available.
Challenges in Assessing Threats
Cumulative and Non‑physical Conduct
Threats may not always have resulted in physical acts. Judges recognise that psychological impact, fear and distress can stem from repeated threats and controlling behaviour even in the absence of physical violence. This assessment aligns with modern definitions of domestic abuse, which encompass a spectrum of harmful behaviours including threats and intimidation.
Disputed Allegations and Fact‑Finding
When the respondent disputes the allegations of threats, courts may require a fact‑finding hearing to establish the facts before deciding the protective order application. This process allows both parties to present evidence and may involve witness testimony where necessary.
Practical Guidance for Applicants
- Document threats clearly with as much detail as possible.
- Corroborate with third‑party evidence and records where available.
- Explain the impact of the threats on your daily life and sense of safety.
- Be prepared for the possibility that the court may require further hearings or risk assessments when threats are contested.
Providing structured and credible evidence helps the court weigh threats effectively within the legal framework.
Key Takeaways
Courts in England and Wales assess threats of violence in protective order applications by applying the civil standard of proof and considering both the specifics of individual incidents and the broader context of the applicant's risk. Threats form part of wider abusive conduct and can justify urgent orders - including interim protection - when there is a reasonable prospect of continued harm. Evidence from police reports, witness statements, risk assessments and communications all inform this evaluation. Where threats are disputed, fact‑finding procedures ensure that courts make decisions based on a fair assessment of risk and the available evidence, balancing protection needs with procedural fairness.
