The government has announced a new proposal aimed at strengthening protections for survivors of domestic abuse, the introduction of “restriction zones” that will further limit the movements of convicted abusers. While the move has been welcomed in principle by campaigners and survivors alike, questions remain over the practical enforceability of such measures and whether they go far enough to enhance existing protections.
What’s being proposed?
Under the new plans, convicted domestic abusers, particularly sexual and violent offenders, could be subject to stricter exclusion zones and GPS monitoring. These so-called restriction zones would extend beyond the current limits (typically around a victim’s home) to include other key locations in the victim’s life, such as schools, workplaces, supermarkets, or family members’ homes. Breaching these zones could result in a criminal offence and a return to custody.
Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones confirmed that the zones will be tailored to individual cases, following a detailed risk assessment carried out by probation officers, with input from the survivor. The government has also pledged to invest £700 million into the Probation Service over the next four years and recruit 1,300 new probation officers by 2026 to support the wider reforms.
A welcome shift in focus
The announcement has been broadly welcomed by domestic abuse charities and campaigners, many of whom have long highlighted that restraining orders often fail to account for the day-to-day realities of a survivor’s life. As survivor “Leanne” shared with Sky News, many perpetrators find ways to confront or intimidate their victims at public places even while subject to court orders, a loophole this reform appears designed to close.
Giving survivors a greater say in identifying these key locations could provide an extra layer of safety, potentially preventing re-traumatisation or further abuse.
But who will police it?
At GLP, we regularly represent survivors of abuse and understand first-hand the devastating impact that contact, even fleeting, with an abuser can have. We welcome any measure that empowers survivors and seeks to offer genuine safety and peace of mind. However, there are serious questions about whether the new system will deliver the level of protection being promised.
- Enforcement: Who will be responsible for actively monitoring these “virtual boundaries”? The Probation Service is already stretched, and the proposed GPS tagging system, while useful in theory, may create a false sense of security if breaches aren’t acted upon quickly and decisively.
- Capacity: With plans underway to release some violent offenders early to ease prison overcrowding, the simultaneous introduction of tighter restrictions could place significant additional pressure on already overburdened services.
- Overlap with Existing Orders: It’s unclear how these restriction zones will interact with current mechanisms such as Non-Molestation Orders, Restraining Orders, or Domestic Violence Protection Orders. Will they replace them? Supplement them? Or confuse enforcement by adding another layer of complexity?
A step, yes, but not yet a solution
The government’s proposals mark a welcome shift in tone and approach, one that puts survivors’ lived experiences at the centre of policy-making. But as with many reforms in the criminal justice system, the true test lies not in the headline, but in the implementation.
Without adequate funding, swift enforcement, and a joined-up approach between police, probation, and the courts, there’s a risk that these restriction zones will become another well-meaning but under-delivered promise.
At GLP, we continue to call for meaningful change, not only in legislation, but in practice. Survivors deserve more than reassurance. They deserve real, enforceable protection.
