1. former partner made false accusations surrounding domestic violence in June 2019 of which I was arrested, bailed and NFA'ed in December 2019.
2. Former partner applied for a Non Mol in July 2019 of which the first hearing was in September which I could not attend, the next in December which I could not attend (busy bee I am) and then the final one on the 10th January 2020.
3. Former partner agreed there had been no contact since June 2019 of when I was first arrested and nothing has happened to her since.
4. 3 Lay Justices ruled that she had suffered 'coercive and controlling behaviour' and decided to extend it another 6 months - much to my bizarre dissapointment.
5. I am now in the process of appealing this to the Higher Courts to a DJ/High Judge as
The following three principles should be considered by a court in deciding whether to grant a non-molestation order:
There must be evidence of molestation (C v C (Non-molestation order: jurisdiction)  1 FLR 554). This can include acts and threats of violence, abusive communication and harassment.
The applicant or relevant child must need protection.
The court must be satisfied that judicial intervention is necessary to control the respondent’s behaviour that is the subject of the complaint (C v C  EWCA Civ 1625).
^ I find it ridicoulous that nothing has taken place in the last 7 months yet they choose to extend it by another 6 months!
I have also complained to the Judiciary explaining that the Lay Justices have not ruled correctly on the matter and there is clear sexual discrimination and a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
We have no children, the former partner is simply preventing me from chasing up a debt approx £11k of which my solicitor has told me we cannot pursue until the NMO is out of the way.
Nonetheless, the NMO will be appealed to the highest level as these false accusations and BS often conjured up by women cannot simply be allowed without any resistance.
Unfortunately the inept Judges believe them simply because they are a woman and my solicitor said 'when a woman speaks, its automatically assumed what she is saying is true and factual'
It’s approx 4 months since the matter of my original posting. A DJ ruled that he could not understand how lay justices care to their decision and ordered a new hearing which was meant to be on the 23rd.
Unfortunately because of the lockdown I was not able to attend but I have contacted the court several times for a new date.
This time I am armed with more evidence and I intend on claiming costs aswell as if potentially losing taking it further if neccesary.