Background
By now, practitioners will be well aware of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (‘the Act’). The Bill was intended to transform the response to domestic abuse through helping to prevent offending and offering greater protection to victims. Part 3 of The Act provides a new measure, the Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO). DAPOs are intended to provide stronger and more flexible protection for victims of domestic abuse. Their primary aim is to prevent further harm by imposing clear restrictions on perpetrators, such as prohibiting contact or excluding them from a victim’s home.
The introduction of DAPOs is widely regarded as the most significant reform to protective injunctions since the Family Law Act 1996, which established non-molestation (NMO) and occupation orders (OO). Unlike traditional NMOs, which operate primarily within the family courts, DAPOs are a cross-jurisdictional measure designed to function across criminal, civil, and family jurisdictions.
Pilot
DAPOs are currently being piloted in a number of areas, which have been rolled out over time. The initial pilot started in November 2024 across Greater Manchester, three London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley, Sutton) and the British Transport Police. It was then expanded in 2025 to include Cleveland and North Wales. The plan is to use these pilot areas to test effectiveness before a full national rollout across England and Wales.
Conditions for making an order
The relevant provision for consideration is contained in section 32 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The court must be satisfied that the parties are personally connected: either they were or are in an intimate relationship or are relatives and people who have/had a parental relationship to the same child.
There are two key criteria which must be satisfied in order for the court to make a DAPO. Firstly, on the balance of probabilities, the court must find that the respondent has been abusive towards the applicant victim, within the broad statutory definition of domestic abuse (which includes physical, emotional, coercive, controlling, and economic abuse). Secondly, the court must consider that making a DAPO is necessary and proportionate to protect the victim from further abuse. This involves assessing the risk of future harm and whether the order would effectively reduce that risk.
Notice
Under section 34(1) of the Act the court can make a DAPO on a without notice basis. An order can be made without notice by the court when it is “just and convenient” to do so.
Terms of the order
Section 35 of the Act allows the court to grant any requirement that it considers necessary to protect the victim. There is a great deal of flexibility within the terms of the order which can include both prohibitions and positive requirements. Terms can include prohibiting contact, prohibiting going within specified premises or location, attendance on mandatory programmes or electronic monitoring.
There is no maximum or minimum duration of DAPOs (section 38 of the Act).
Applicants
Section 28(2) of the Act defines who can apply for a DAPO. A DAPO can be applied for by the victim themselves, as well as by third parties such as the police or authorised organisations acting on the victim’s behalf, and in some cases the court may impose a DAPO during ongoing criminal, civil, or family proceedings. This contrasts with a NMO which generally requires the victim or someone with legal standing, such as a parent or guardian, to make the application. The broader eligibility for applying for a DAPO reflects its emphasis on proactive protection, ensuring that relevant authorities can step in to safeguard victims even if they are unable or unwilling to apply themselves.
Variation and appeal
DAPOs can be varied and appealed under sections 44 and 47 of the Act. This provides flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Applications can be made to the court to modify the terms of a DAPO—for example, adding or removing prohibitions or requirements—if the situation evolves or parts of the order are no longer appropriate. In addition, the respondent has the right to appeal the order or its specific conditions to a higher court. These mechanisms ensure that while victims remain protected, the orders are also fair, proportionate, and adaptable to individual cases.
Conclusion
As the pilot scheme continues to roll out across selected areas, it will be closely monitored to see how effectively it can be implemented and whether it will eventually be extended nationwide. The team at Becket Chambers are ready to support victims in obtaining relevant orders and in time navigating this new legal framework, offering expert guidance and assistance to help secure the protection they need. With the promise of DAPOs to unify and strengthen protective measures, the coming months will be crucial in determining how this innovative tool can make a real difference for those at risk.
For more information about our family law services please contact clerks@becket-chambers.co.uk
