Court Hears That Man Allegedly Breached Court Order By Coming With 100 Yards Of Ex-Partner & Inquiring About Her
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Nathan James Higgins appeared in the Summary Court today, July 2, 2026, to face allegations of breaches of protection orders, as he was not supposed to approach the complainant. Higgins pled not guilty to the allegations, and his trial date was set for later this month.
Outlining the charges, the Chief Magistrate said that it was alleged that, on May 29, 2026, at Jack’s Sports Bar in West Bay, Higgins breached an interim protection order not to approach within 100 yards of the complainant.
For the second allegation, the Chief Magistrate said it was alleged that on June 5, 2026, at the same location, Higgins breached a protection order prohibiting contact with the complainant’s family or friends. In this case, it was alleged that Higgins contacted the complainant’s friend to ask about her whereabouts.
A trial date was set for July 17, 2026, with a case management hearing on July 9, 2026.
While the Chief Magistrate indicated the need to consider special measures for the victim, defence counsel Amelia Fosuhene noted that the victim had previously contacted Higgins to fix her washing machine after the protection order was implemented. On that basis, defence counsel said any implementation of special measures would be opposed.
The case highlights the difficulty of implementing protection orders when the parties shared similar friend groups and frequented the same places over an eight-year relationship. The scenario creates ongoing complex dynamics.
Note to readers
These charges arise under section 22 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. This states:
Breach of a protection, occupation, tenancy or ancillary order
22. (1) A respondent commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of two years or both if a protection, occupation, tenancy or ancillary order has been served personally on the respondent and the respondent’s conduct is in contravention of that order in any respect.
(2) In the case of a continuing breach of an order specified in subsection (1), the respondent may be ordered by the court to pay a further sum of one hundred dollars for each day that such breach continues after the date of its proof.
