Restraining and Non-Molestation Orders 858/2025

FOI Reference: 858/2025

Request:

Please may I request a list of which actions (made by/on behalf of Restrained Parties) constitute breaches of Restraining Orders and Non-Molestation Orders. And, please may I also request information in relation to which actions fall under direct and indirect breaches respectively.

I query this, as I have recently learned that actions which both Police Forces and Legal Professionals have - initially - believed to be (indirect) breaches of Restraining Orders, have later been identified as non-breaches (not a breach of the Order). One such example includes:

At present, a Restrained Party/Perpetrator will NOT be in breach of a Restraining Order if he chooses to view a Protected Party's LinkedIn Profile. This is despite the fact that viewing leaves a notification for the protected party that the Restrained Party/The Perpetrator/The Abuser/Offender has viewed their profile (terrifying the protected party, making them fear for safety). By viewing the Profile: The Perpetrator will NOT have breached the Restraining Order - It matters not that the victim has changed their name, and has created a brand new account: In such a case, the viewing of a profile in this way is NOT a breach. This is also despite the fact that Restraining Orders are often written to cover indirect contact and social media in the following way:

"Not to Contact Jane DOE either directly or indirectly in anyway including, by telephone, text, or social media platforms."

At present, the reporting of such to a Police Force will ensure a Domestic Violence Incident is recorded, alongside a screenshot taken, but it will NOT be deemed a breach. Another way in which such conduct may occur, but isn't necessarily clear whether or not it constitutes a breach includes: A Restrained Party views (but doesn't interact with) a Protected Party's Instagram Story - This shows the Protected Party that their story has been viewed by the Restrained Party, and puts them in fear for their safety. The Protected Party is left feeling harassed and unsafe.

Response:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does not hold the information requested, this is due to the fact that this request raises issues which are entirely case specific and would be subject to the determination of the Crown Prosecution Service who would be responsible to determine whether prosecution action would/ should be taken or not and then ultimately the decision of the courts.

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 03/09/2025)