You shall not pass
Civil restraining orders provide a civil-law route for individuals seeking protection from harmful or unwanted conduct, without requiring a criminal prosecution or a prior relationship between the parties. Tony Collier bars the door
The Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 introduced a significant reform with the creation of civil restraining orders, which came into effect on 2 September 2024.
These orders provide a civil-law route for individuals seeking protection from harmful or unwanted conduct, without requiring a criminal prosecution or a prior relationship between the parties.
Until recently, harassment and threatening behaviour in Ireland were mainly addressed through criminal charges or domestic violence orders. Section 28 of the 2023 act fills a gap by allowing individuals with no familial or intimate connection to a respondent to seek protective relief through the civil courts.
The reform reflects a broader move towards early, accessible, non-criminal interventions designed to prevent escalation and protect psychological and physical wellbeing.
It is seen as an effective surrogate to criminal proceedings in circumstances where the applicant is experiencing harm from the respondent, but not at the evidential threshold required for a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Civil restraining orders (CROs) aim to provide swift relief in situations where victims may feel at risk but where criminal proceedings are not possible or appropriate. They are particularly useful in cases involving neighbours, colleagues, or other non-familial relationships where persistent harassment or threatening behaviour persists.
The introduction of CROs also recognises the psychological impact of harassment and unwanted attention. Victims often experience stress, anxiety, and disruption to daily life, even in the absence of physical violence.
CROs are intended to address these harms directly and promptly, providing legal recourse that can be faster and less intimidating than criminal proceedings.
Legislative framework
Civil restraining orders are grounded primarily in section 28 of the 2023 act and informed by the definition of harassment under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
Together, these provisions allow a person to obtain a court order restricting conduct that causes alarm, distress, or fear – even where no crime has been charged or proven.
By establishing a civil route for protection, the legislation complements existing criminal law remedies.
While criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, CROs rely on the balance of probabilities, making them more accessible and often faster for applicants.
Importantly, the act removes the need for a prior relationship between the parties, which previously limited access to protective orders in many harassment cases.
As a civil remedy, a restraining order is determined on the balance of probabilities. This lower standard allows individuals to secure protection where the evidential threshold for a criminal prosecution cannot be reached but the behaviour of the respondent is sufficient to cause distress.
Applicants may be any individual experiencing unwanted conduct, or a member of An Garda Síochána acting on their behalf.
Respondents may be anyone alleged to have engaged in the behaviour, such as neighbours, colleagues, acquaintances, or complete strangers, giving the orders a broad protective reach.
CROs cover a wide range of behaviour. Common scenarios include repeated unwanted contact via social media, persistent following or monitoring, harassment at or near the applicant’s workplace, or interference with property.
By extending protection to non-intimate relationships, the legislation reflects a modern understanding of harassment beyond domestic or familial contexts.
In practice, solicitors advising clients on CROs have found that the flexibility of the orders allows them to tailor conditions to the unique circumstances of each case. For example, a CRO may prohibit the respondent from approaching the applicant’s home or workplace, but allow professional interaction in a limited context where unavoidable, such as in public service or legal settings.
Judicial considerations
When assessing an application, the court must consider whether the respondent’s behaviour is likely to cause the applicant to fear violence or to experience serious alarm or distress, with a substantial adverse impact on daily life.
Conduct examined under section 27 includes following, monitoring, pestering, impersonation, unauthorised communication, dissemination of private information, interference with property or pets, loitering, and digital interference.
Judges must also be satisfied that any order is necessary and proportionate to the risk faced by the applicant. Evidence presented may include witness statements, screenshots of communications, photographic or video evidence, and logs of unwanted contact.
Courts are mindful to ensure that orders are targeted and proportionate, avoiding unnecessarily broad restrictions on respondents’ civil liberties. In addition, judges may consider any history of prior complaints or behaviour patterns, helping to assess the likelihood of future harm.
Conditions and duration
A standard order may last for up to five years, although the court may set a shorter period if appropriate. Ex parte interim orders may be granted for up to eight days where there is an immediate risk to the applicant.
When an interim order is made, the respondent must be served with the order, the supporting affidavit, and any note of evidence or judicial directions.
Conditions commonly imposed include prohibitions on violence, threats, or harassment; restrictions on contacting or communicating with the applicant; limitations on approaching specified locations, such as the applicant’s home, workplace, or school; and any other measures necessary to ensure the applicant’s safety.
Courts have recognised that flexibility is essential, particularly in cases involving online harassment, where restrictions may include limiting social media interactions or monitoring digital accounts.
CROs are designed to be proportionate to the risk and the respondent’s behaviour. For example, in cases of repeated online harassment, a court might specify particular platforms where communication is prohibited, while allowing legitimate professional or personal interactions elsewhere.
Enforcement and sanctions
Breach of a civil restraining order is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine or up to 12 months’ imprisonment. Gardaí may arrest a respondent without a warrant where they believe an order has been breached.
They operate in the same manner as offences for alleged breaches of safety, protection, and barring orders under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.
Solicitors working the criminal law courts will adapt easily to these newly created offences for alleged breaches of CROs for this reason.
Enforcement often requires timely reporting by the applicant and careful documentation of breaches.
Gardaí play a key role in investigating and prosecuting breaches, while the criminal courts are tasked with dealing with these matters on the higher evidential standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Practitioners have noted that the threat of criminal sanctions enhances the protective effect of CROs and encourages compliance, reducing the likelihood of further errant conduct by respondents.
An order takes effect only once the respondent has been notified, either immediately if present in court or through service by An Garda Síochána thereafter. Orders may also extend to individuals connected with the applicant to provide wider protection.
Notification procedures balance expediency with fairness.
Interim ex parte orders allow immediate protection, while full hearings enable respondents to present their side of the case. This ensures that the rights of respondents are respected, even while providing swift protection to applicants.
Procedural safeguards
Orders may be appealed to the civil court within 14 days and can be varied or discharged on application by either party or by a garda. Cross-examination of applicants under 18 or those in sensitive circumstances may be restricted.
Where self-representation is inappropriate, the court may appoint a solicitor. It is not clear which Legal Aid Scheme is applicable in these circumstances.
Judges are required to provide reasons for granting, refusing, varying, or discharging an order, ensuring transparency and fairness in decision-making.
Courts must consider necessity and proportionality, tailoring orders to the specific risk presented by the respondent’s behaviour. This protects applicants without imposing unnecessarily broad restrictions on respondents.
Under section 30 of the act, a successful applicant may apply to renew a CRO before its expiry. This application is made in the District Court on notice to the respondent.
Either the applicant or the respondent may make an application to discharge an order on notice to each other, pursuant to section 29.
The legislation allows live video evidence in appropriate circumstances, such as for minors or vulnerable witnesses, and provides the court with flexibility in relation to costs.
Courts may order that each party bear their own costs, to encourage applications while avoiding financial barriers to protection. There seems to be a general reluctance on the part of the District Court to award costs in these types of cases.
Section 31 of the act allows gardaí to make applications on behalf of an individual where they become aware of an incident or series of incidents of relevant conduct that would justify the application. Consultation with the applicant is required by the act “as far as reasonably practicable”.
This mechanism enables the gardaí to act swiftly when victims are unable or unwilling to apply themselves, reinforcing the accessibility of the new civil remedy.
There are obvious issues here with the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence and, therefore, it is difficult to see how a garda could succeed in an application without the evidence of the injured individual.
Victim centred
Civil restraining orders are a significant addition to Ireland’s protective legal landscape. By offering a civil route to safety without the need for a criminal prosecution or a personal connection between the parties, the legislation provides a flexible, swift, and victim-centred mechanism.
The effectiveness of CROs will depend on consistent judicial application, careful attention to balancing protection with the procedural rights of respondents, and ongoing practitioner awareness.
For solicitors, understanding the practicalities of applying for, enforcing, and varying CROs is essential for delivering timely and effective advice to clients.
Tony Collier is a partner with Ferry’s Solicitors, leading the firm in criminal law, public-interest litigation, human-rights law, and rights-based advocacy.