By Sonya Kalyan, Counsel for the Claimant
Introduction
The case of Lafronte v Johnson [2025] EWFC 20 (B) is a stark illustration of the unintended consequences of systemic delays in the criminal courts. The Family Court was required to adjudicate a committal application for breaches of a Non-Molestation Order (“NMO”) — an issue ordinarily reserved for the criminal courts. This case not only highlights the interplay between the civil and criminal justice systems but also underscores the practical difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse seeking enforcement of protective orders.
Legal Framework
Under the Family Law Act 1996, a NMO is designed to protect victims from harassment, threats, or violence. Breach of such an order constitutes a criminal offence under section 42A of the Act, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. However, where criminal prosecution is not feasible or is delayed, the civil courts retain jurisdiction to enforce compliance through contempt proceedings, as affirmed in Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879.
The evidential threshold for contempt proceedings is the criminal standard — proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Lafronte v Johnson, the Family Court was compelled to assume a role typically reserved for the criminal justice system due to delays in listing the Defendant’s criminal trial until December 2026 — over five years after the initial breach.
Factual Background and Analysis
The Claimant, Lydia Lafronte, alleged five breaches of the NMO made in April 2021 and extended until April 2023. The breaches occurred between June 2021 and June 2022. The Family Court found three of the five breaches proven:
- 20 June 2021 – Unlawful Attendance at the Claimant’s Home: The Defendant attended the Claimant’s home on Father’s Day despite being prohibited from doing so. Although the visit was facilitated by the Claimant’s parents, the court found that the Defendant bore responsibility for ensuring compliance with the NMO (Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196).
- 26 October 2021 – Prohibited Telephone Contact: The Defendant initiated a telephone call to the Claimant, claiming concern for their child. The court rejected the reasonable excuse defence, holding that alternative lawful channels of communication were available (Re L-W (Enforcement and Committal: Contact Orders) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253).
- 24 June 2022 – Unlawful Email Communication: The Defendant directly emailed the Claimant, again in breach of the NMO. The court emphasised that indirect means of communication (e.g., through solicitors) were expressly mandated by the NMO.
The court dismissed the remaining two allegations due to evidential insufficiencies, particularly in relation to a disputed hacking claim where the Claimant’s evidence lacked corroboration. However, these claims usually require substantial technological evidence to succeed.
Sentencing and Broader Implications
Applying the principles established in Hale v Tanner, the court considered both the punitive and deterrent objectives of sentencing. Despite the gravity of the breaches, imprisonment was deemed disproportionate given mitigating factors, including the Defendant’s lack of further breaches post-April 2023, his role as a carer for his mother, and his apology to both the Claimant and the court. Instead, the Defendant was fined £200, payable within 12 months; consideration of his means was also taken into account.
This outcome raises serious concerns. While the Family Court provided some measure of justice, it lacked the full range of sentencing options available to the criminal courts, such as community orders. Moreover, the necessity of these proceedings reflects the broader failure of the criminal justice system to address domestic abuse cases in a timely manner. As Bianca Castro noted in the Law Society Gazette, criminal court delays are forcing family courts to fill enforcement gaps, resulting in fragmented and often inadequate relief for victims.
Impact on Victims
The impact of such delays on victims is profound. For individuals like Lydia Lafronte, the prolonged uncertainty exacerbates emotional distress and undermines confidence in the legal system’s ability to provide protection. Victims often experience heightened anxiety, fear, and a sense of helplessness when enforcement mechanisms fail to deliver timely justice. The psychological toll can be severe, affecting their mental health, stability, and overall well-being. In many cases, delays in legal proceedings force victims to make difficult personal and financial decisions, such as relocating or seeking additional protective measures at their own expense. These failures highlight the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure that victims are not left vulnerable due to bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Conclusion
Lafronte v Johnson is emblematic of a growing crisis in legal enforcement. The Family Court should not have been placed in the position of conducting quasi-criminal trials due to systemic inefficiencies elsewhere. The judgment serves as both a warning and a call to action — urgent reforms are needed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse receive timely and effective legal protection. Until then, justice will continue to be delayed, and for many, effectively denied.
Read full judgment here.
For any booking enquiries, please contact the clerks at clerks@halcyonchambers.com
The views stated in this article belong to the writers in a personal capacity. No warranty is given, express or implied, in respect of the contents of this article. Nothing in this article is tendered as or is intended to be taken as legal advice and the contents should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice. Specialist legal advice should always be taken in every case noting that the application of the law may vary according to the individual facts of the case and the nature of the dispute.
