In the high court ruling in Case HIGC3456 delivered on 27/6/01 a precedent was set regarding the Court’s conduct in ex-parte granted non-molestation order cases. Try googling this case.
P2 states: ‘a non-molestation order is a serious interference with a person’s liberty and could have grave consequences due to the power of arrest to which it gives rise.’
On P5 it states: ‘if the court makes an order by virtue of paragraph (1), it shall afford the respondent (ie the person who has had the order served upon them) an opportunity to make representations relating to the order as soon as just and convenient at a full hearing.’
On P7 it states: ‘Given the nature of a non-molestation order and its effect …a FULL hearing must be convened at the earliest opportunity.’
P8 it states: A respondent should be ‘afforded an opportunity to make representations’ at the earliest opportunity.’
The statement on P10 ‘in any event the evidence in support of the application shall state the reasons why the application is made ex-parte’ is no comfort to the respondent if the given reasons for ‘justifying’ making the order in the respondent’s absence are entirely fictitious and fabricated, however they do provide a starting point for galvanising a response when an opportunity is provided (If of course such opportunity is provided).
P10 ‘Article 23 (3) REQUIRES the court to afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations’ P11 at the ‘earliest opportunity’.
Also on P11 ‘there is the Potential for such an order to Work an Injustice on the respondent.’