The PSNI is unable to say how many serving police officers or civilian staff have been issued with Non-Molestation Orders in the last five years, as it doesn’t keep records.
fficers are also not compelled to disclose if they are subject to family court proceedings as a result of abuse allegations.
Non-Molestation Orders (NMOs) are obtained by a victim of domestic abuse from a magistrate through the Family Courts.
A victim of such abuse can apply to the court for an NMO against someone described as an ‘associated person’.
They include spouses, ex-spouses, civil partners, ex-civil partners, cohabitees and former cohabitees; it can also include various family members.
They often contain conditions, including bans on abusive contact and exclusion areas around a victim’s home or work.
While they are civil orders, they carry powers of search and arrest and are seen as a critical tool in protecting victims of domestic abuse.
Using a Freedom of Information request, the PSNI was asked how many officers had been issued with an NMO in the last five years and similarly how many civilian policing staff had been issued with an order.
The PSNI said “there is no way to identify how many officers have been served with an NMO”.
A spokesperson added that it would be too costly to find out how many officers had been served with an order.
“We can advise that we are unable to provide a definite number as it is possible that officers may have been subject to a NMO, yet not notified their authorities,” the PSNI said.
“As such, it would be necessary to do an extensive search on the PSNI database, in order to identify records relating to service of NMOs and then check if the individuals involved were serving police officers.
“A preliminary check on the database identified 1,800 occurrences over the past five years relating to service of NMO.
“A check of all these occurrences to establish if a police officer was involved, at an estimate of two minutes per file, would take approximately 60 hours of work, therefore exceeding the 18-hour cost limit as set by the Secretary of State.”
In relation to civilian PSNI staff who have been served with NMOs, the spokesperson said “there is no way to distinguish civilian profiles of staff members from other civilians”.
“As such, for the requested information pertaining to the number of civilian staff, both serving and suspended, that have received a Non-Molestation Order (NMO), PSNI would need to manually cross reference all staff with civilian profiles in order to respond to this request”.
In March of this year, an examination of UK police forces found that 45 PSNI officers and staff who were accused of domestic abuse are still serving.
The data gathered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism forms part of a UK-wide probe based on replies from 41 police forces following the murder of Sarah Everard by serving Metropolitan police officer Wayne Couzens.
The figures showed 52 PSNI officers and staff were reported for domestic abuse between January 2018 and September 2021.
Of those, none were convicted; 12 were disciplined; one was removed from their post, and 45 remain.
However, the number of officers served with orders by the family court is unknown, with no internal rule to compel them to reveal the information.
The Belfast Telegraph asked to interview someone from the Public Protection Unit about the issue but that request was refused.
Instead, a statement was provided by PSNI Chief Superintendent Simon Walls, Head of Professional Standards.
He said: “Under the Code of Ethics and staff disciplinary process, police officers and staff are required to inform their line manager and Chief Constable of any legal proceedings initiated against them, whether in relation to a criminal, motoring or civil action.
“Where Non-Molestation Orders are concerned there are often domestic abuse incidents that result in this outcome and as a police service we would not only be aware of these proceedings, but our Public Protection Branch Detectives would also be part of any criminal investigation.
“Decisions regarding any police misconduct outcomes as a result of these incidents are made on a case-by-case basis.”
Alliance Party Policing Board member John Blair said he would be raising this as part of a wider issue linked to police misconduct.
“At the last public meeting of the Policing Board I sought and secured a special meeting of the board dedicated to the problems arising from these disciplinary matters, the timeframes involved, and the role of professional standards department in all of these issues,” the Assembly member added.
