[2] Non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 were amended to provide a criminal sanction for non-compliance, with a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.

Previously the police would have to allege assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which was arrestable, in order to detain the suspected assailant in borderline cases.

[8] The regime for dealing with defendants who are unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity (that is, committed the physical acts constituting the offence but without the sane intent) has also been modified.

[12] The Act deals with the problem in two ways: firstly by creating an offence of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult", and secondly by amending the rules of court procedure to require joint defendants to give their account of events in the witness box, effectively forcing them to incriminate the other if appropriate.

David Ormerod, writing in the criminal law textbook Smith and Hogan, notes that the Act deliberately does not define what counts as a "household".

[2] This had been described in the eighteenth century by William Blackstone, who wrote in Book 4, Chapter 16[18] of his Commentaries on the Laws of England: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[19] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?

[20] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private.

Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principal it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.In 2009 charities providing advice to debtors said they were seeing bailiffs threatening to break in unless the debtor paid the full fine immediately, as well court and bailiff costs.

Previously, charities had been able to advise debtors that bailiffs did not have the right to force entry, and the fine could be referred back to the courts and affordable payment schedules worked out.