Family violence — final protection order — special conditions — sexual offending — Evidence Act 2006, s 9 — Family Violence Act 2018 , ss 3, 4, 11 & 103 — Domestic Violence Act 1995 (repealed), s 27 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , ss 4, 5, 6 & 18 — Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 — Lowe v Huang HC Wellington CIV-2004-485-2630, 28 February 2007 — NHG v GTM [2010] NZFLR 919 — N v D [2001] NZFLR 491 — Surrey v Surrey [2010] 2 NZLR 581 — SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289. This hearing was to determine an application for a final protection order in respect of the respondent. The respondent's mother and the applicant were siblings, and the two respective families lived on adjoining properties. It came to light that the respondent had sexually offended against three of his underage cousins over the course of several years. After the offending came to light, the respondent continued to live at the neighbouring property. The offending had a significant traumatic impact on the victims. The applicant sought a final protection order in favour of the three victims. At issue was whether special conditions should be imposed in the order preventing the respondent from living at the adjoining property. The respondent opposed the granting of this condition on the basis of lack of valid reason, and his counsel submitted that there was no jurisdiction to grant the condition. A court could impose a special condition if it was deemed to protect the protected person from "further family violence". The applicant admitted in her evidence that she did not perceive any ongoing sexual threat from the respondent, but that he had not fully comprehended the damage his offending had caused. The submission on behalf of the respondent was that the legislative provision contemplated present or future family violence, and that it would strain the meaning of the legislative wording if a court was not required to come to the conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood of further violence. Further, it was submitted that where a provision could be interpreted to be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act, this meaning should be preferred. The Judge rejected this submission, noting that Parliament cannot have intended that the provision would confer less, rather than more, protection to victims of family violence. To conclude so would run contrary to the purpose and principles of the Family Violence Act. The Judge granted a final protection order in favour of the three victims, with the special condition that the respondent not be permitted to live at the adjoining property, but that he be entitled to visit the property on no more than four occasions in any calendar year with two weeks written notice to the applicant and a curfew, and other times with the express consent of the applicant. Judgment Date: 14 October 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *