Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs) in Practice
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), legislated under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, represent a significant shift in the way protective measures are used in domestic abuse cases.
These provisions have been piloted in several key areas, including Greater Manchester, Croydon, Bromley, Sutton, and with the British Transport Police, since 27th November 2024. In 2025, two additional areas joined the pilot: Cleveland on 5th March 2025 and North Wales on 28th April 2025.
Early experience from practitioners suggests that DAPOs are already reshaping how protection and perpetrator accountability are approached in practice.
This article will draw on practical experience of their use and highlight emerging trends.
For more details on the pilot courts and access to the draft Orders, visit the official Judiciary Guidance and Resources page.
A Shift Towards Positive Requirements
A defining feature of DAPOs is their ability to impose positive requirements, and in practice these are increasingly being used. Rather than focusing solely on prohibiting behaviour, courts are now more frequently requiring respondents to engage with interventions aimed at addressing underlying causes.
These may include:
Behaviour change programmes
Substance misuse support
Mental health interventions
This reflects a broader policy aim: not only to protect victims, but to reduce reoffending by addressing perpetrator behaviour.
That said, positive requirements are not appropriate or workable in every case. Situations involving police decisions of no further action (NFA), victim withdrawal, or evidential limitations may restrict what can realistically be imposed.
DAPOs Compared with Non-Molestation Orders
In practice, DAPOs are often compared with non-molestation orders, but they go significantly further in scope and flexibility.
Key distinctions include:
Duration: Non-molestation orders are typically limited (often 6–12 months), whereas DAPOs can be made for longer periods, including on an indefinite basis where justified.
Conditions: DAPOs allow for both prohibitive and positive requirements.
Framework: They are intended to consolidate and streamline various existing protective orders into a more unified regime.
For practitioners, this creates greater flexibility in tailoring orders to the specific risks in each case.
The Application Process: Practical Considerations
Although DAPOs can be applied for by third parties (including the police), in practice there is often value in the applicant being closely involved in preparing their own evidence.
A common approach is:
The applicant provides a witness statement in their own words
Practitioners support, structure, and refine it
This helps avoid practical issues that have arisen where applications are made entirely on someone’s behalf - for example, basic but significant errors such as incorrect addresses.
While third-party applications remain an important feature of the regime, practitioner experience suggests that accuracy and authenticity are often improved where the applicant retains ownership of their evidence.
Enforcement and Breach
DAPOs benefit from a robust enforcement framework. Breach of a DAPO is a criminal offence, which marks a significant strengthening compared to some existing civil orders.
In practice, there is a perception among practitioners that breaches are taken seriously and actively enforced.
While comparative data is still developing due to the pilot nature of the scheme, this stronger enforcement framework is central to the effectiveness of DAPOs.
Expanding the Scope of Protective Conditions
DAPOs allow for more creative and responsive conditions, reflecting the realities of abuse today.
In practice, this has included:
Restrictions on social media use or online contact, addressing a growing area of concern
Exclusion zones, which may (where proportionate and necessary) extend to locations such as workplaces, schools, or nurseries
The ability to include such conditions provides a more tailored and realistic form of protection for victims.
Emerging Trends in Practice
Although still in the pilot phase, several trends are beginning to emerge:
A high proportion of applications appear to be granted in practice
There is increasing scrutiny around the use and proportionality of positive requirements
Some respondents initially do not engage with proceedings, but later return to seek variation or discharge
An increase in appeals and challenges as the legal framework develops
These trends reflect a system that is still in its early stages of implementation, with both practitioners and courts testing its boundaries.
Multi-Agency Working and Behaviour Change
A central aim of DAPOs is to support multi-agency intervention, particularly in addressing perpetrator behaviour.
Programmes such as The Drive Partnership illustrate how this works in practice. Operating in a pilot capacity, such initiatives focus on:
Intensive engagement with perpetrators
Behaviour change over extended periods (often up to a year)
Identifying underlying issues such as substance misuse, mental health, or socio-economic factors
Referrals may arise through court proceedings, particularly where concerns are identified. Where a perpetrator engages meaningfully, programmes may ultimately provide a “safe to recommend” outcome.
There is a growing view within the sector that greater use of Family Court referrals into such programmes could enhance the effectiveness of DAPOs.
Accessibility and Removal of Barriers
One of the most significant practical advantages of DAPOs is their accessibility:
They do not require a criminal charge or conviction
They may be applied for by third parties, including the police
Victims are not always required to initiate or personally pursue proceedings, as applications can be made on their behalf
This reduces the burden on victims and allows protective measures to be put in place even where traditional routes are not viable.
Accountability and Long-Term Impact
DAPOs are designed not only to restrict behaviour but to hold perpetrators accountable in a more structured and sustained way.
With the potential for:
Long-term or even indefinite orders
Ongoing monitoring and compliance checks
Mandatory engagement with support programmes
They represent a shift towards a more interventionist and preventative model.
Importantly, they recognise that many perpetrators present with complex needs, and that effective risk reduction often requires more than prohibition.
Conclusion
For family practitioners, Domestic Abuse Protection Orders represent a developing but potentially powerful addition to the existing protective framework. Their flexibility, particularly the inclusion of positive requirements and the ability for third parties to apply, marks a shift beyond the traditional scope of non-molestation orders.
Early experience suggests that DAPOs can enhance both protection and accountability, although their effective use will depend on careful, proportionate application in practice.
For further details on the pilot courts and access to the draft Orders, visit the official Judiciary Guidance and Resources page.