Chapter 4 Questions

1.  What is the significance for the purposes of the FLA 1996 of being an ‘associated person’ and an ‘entitled person’?

2.  Can the distinctions drawn within the FLA’s occupation order scheme between different types of relationships be justified?

3.  How should the interests of victims and the state be prioritized in dealing with domestic abuse? Should victims have greater control over the conduct of criminal proceedings, particularly for breach of a non-molestation order?  Does the CSA 2010 give too much power to the state in the civil arena? 

4.   What rights of victims and perpetrators are at stake, and how should those rights be balanced by a court considering making:

   a. an occupation order under the FLA 1996;

   b. a DVPO under the CSA 2010?

5. Consider the proposals for DAPNs and DAPOs in the 2019 Bill, discussed in the update for this chapter on the Online Resources. In particular:

   a. how might these orders interact with the FLA remedies?

   b. how are DAPNs/DAPOs different from the DVPN/DVPO regime under the Crime & Security Act 2010?

   c. does the 2019 Bill DAPN/DAPO regime give enough weight to victims’ rights?

   d. does it give enough weight to perpetrators’ rights?