Essay 06· 16 min read· Updated 2 June 2026
The Architecture of Silence
Every protective order available to courts in England and Wales, and what happens when they are sought against the victim instead of the offender.
The law provides courts with a range of orders designed to protect victims. Restraining orders. Stalking protection orders. Non-molestation orders. Communication restrictions. They are, in design, among the most powerful protections the law provides. They are also, in the wrong hands, instruments of considerable harm.
- Protective orders
- Civil law
When a stalking or harassment case concludes, the court has a range of tools available to protect the victim going forward. In cases of DARVO, where an offender has successfully misidentified their victim as the perpetrator, these same orders can be sought and obtained against the actual victim. When that happens, the architecture of protection becomes the architecture of silence.
The seven orders
- Stalking Protection Orders, available before charge; breach is a criminal offence carrying up to five years
- Restraining orders on conviction, imposable by a sentencing court for harassment or fear of violence
- Restraining orders on acquittal, available where necessary to protect a person from harassment, on the civil standard of proof
- Domestic Abuse Protection Notices, issued by a senior police officer; trigger a 48-hour court hearing
- Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, no minimum or maximum duration, can include electronic monitoring; can be applied for by police, local authorities, charities, and victims themselves
- Domestic Violence Protection Orders, 14 to 28 days, issued in advance of a magistrates hearing
- Non-molestation orders and civil injunctions, available to associated persons in the civil courts
Communication and social-media conditions
Courts have increasing power to impose conditions restricting communications and social-media use: prohibition on contacting named individuals by any means including through third parties; prohibition on posting about named individuals on any platform; requirements to surrender devices or provide passwords. The legal basis for challenging overly broad restrictions is the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 10 protects freedom of expression. Article 11 protects freedom of association. Conditions must be tailored, in clear and precise terms, no greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim.
The data on use
- SPOs issued across 40 forces by Jan 2025 (BBC FOI)
- 1,439
- Stalking offences recorded in a single year to March 2024
- 129,076
- Restraining-order breach prosecutions, 2017 to 2024
- -40%
- DAPOs issued in the pilot since November 2024
- 1,000+
When orders are sought against victims
Every order above is designed to protect. In DARVO cases, the offender's tactical use of the same orders against their victim is documented. A non-molestation order obtained on a without-notice application, on the offender's account alone, can take effect before the actual victim has had the chance to respond. A restraining order on acquittal, available on the civil standard, can be imposed even where the criminal case against the named protected person has failed. This is the architecture, working in reverse.
“The orders are working exactly as designed. The question is who is being protected from whom.”