When I read about a Civil Restraint Order my mind conjures up pictures of the Civil Guardia in Spain slapping the cuffs on someone, but as we know, that is not the case.
In this Bournemouth case the parents represented themselves. On 23rd of July 2025 DJ Veal made a public law order re two children.
DJ Veal made:
- A care order, children to remain with M
- A four year extension of an existing non-molestation order against F
- A four year s 91(14) order against F
And referred the matter of a Civil Restraint Order to either the designated Civil or Family Judge, saying it would complement the s91(14) order.
Before DJ Veal, F indicated he would apply to dismiss the Non-mol order, if acquitted of criminal proceedings to be heard later (convicted!).
At a hearing on 13th August 2025 F appealed the order of DJ Veal, which HHJ Simmonds dismissed ‘as totally without merit’. At the same time, HHJ Simmonds listed the hearing of the Civil Restraint Order to the 1st September 2025.
At the Civil Restraint hearing:
- HHJ Simmonds had a transcript of DJ Veal’s judgement
- F said he had no time to prepare, HHJ Simmonds dismissed that; and added ’the matter today was listed giving time for him [F] to prepare’.
DJ Veal had noted ‘the Father has made 6 applications which have been certified as totally without merit in the care proceedings alone’; saying F has used litigation post-separation as a form of abuse directed at the mother.
Law: HHJ Simmonds referred to Rule 4.8 of FPR 2010 and PD 4B, in particular rules 4.3.(7), 4.4.(5) and 18.13. Summarising that ‘where a statement of case or application is struck out or dismissed and is totally without merit, the court … must specify that fact and the court must consider whether to make a civil restraint order…’
Rules provide for the court to make such an order without hearing from the parties but higher courts say that they should normally made on satisfactory notice to the person affected.
There are 3 types of Civil Restraint order:
- A limited Civil Restraint order (does not cover contempt or Family law Proceedings)
- An extended Civil Restraint order, as in this case
- A draconian General Civil Restraint order (not necessary as an ECRO can protect M, no need to restrict F’s ability to take action against the world).
The Judge referred to Nowack v Nursing Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1932 (QB) Leggatt J. I summarise as follows:
- Meritless applications waste court time and money
- They impose costs and waste time for others involved
- It is in the public interest to have a strong court system
- Any application would still have to be reviewed by a Judge first.
Of F, Judge Simmonds said:
- He has lost sight of the issues
- Has to be right all the time
- Everybody else is wrong
- Has disregard of the costs and
- Disregards the harm he is doing to M and the children.
Indeed during the trial F told the Judge he was:
Going to appeal his criminal conviction, apply to discharge the non-mol, apply for a fact find in any Family Law Proceedings and appeal HHJ Simmonds refusal of his appeal because ‘he dealt with his appeal of the ICO and he is now ‘marking his own homework’!
HHJ Simmonds found the test for making an Extended Civil Restraint order was met, making a two year order, and directing that any permission application to be listed in front of himself.
In conclusion, and trying to be polite, this situation does crop up, but fortunately not that often I am pleased to say!
