2. The defendant was not to contact, harass, threaten, follow or intimidate Zahra or cause or allow another person to do any of those things; 3. The defendant was not to contact, harass, threaten or intimidate any person at place of residence or work nor to allow any other person to do any of those Zahra’s things.' When the matter came before the Court for the disputed confirmation hearing on 9 March 2010, the position was that the restraining order was disputed by Ziaolleh. It was necessary for the prosecutor, Sergeant Smith, to prove that a permanent order should be granted. For that purpose she had to be ready to proceed as if all matters were in dispute. However, on the day, the solicitor for Ziaolleh informed the court that the matter could be resolved by Ziaolleh consenting to the order, but with a modification. The requested modification was that because Ziaolleh was asserted to be a cultural leader within his community, he should be permitted to attend cultural and religious functions in that capacity. The intent of the application was that the order would not prevent Ziaolleh from being present at such a cultural event, even if Zahra were present at the same event. The solicitor for Ziaolleh had clearly failed to appreciate that there was nothing in the existing interim order to prevent such a thing from occurring. Nor apparently had Sergeant Smith because it was left to the clerk of the court to inform the presiding magistrate that nothing in the interim order prevented such a circumstance from occurring. In any event, after discussions between Sergeant Smith and Zahra and Arman, who were present at the court on that day, the order was confirmed in a varied format. The following addendum was made: '1. Order confirmed: The domestic violence restraining order is varied by inserting a new paragraph 6(g): In the event both the defendant and protected person are at a community religious event, the defendant is not to approach or speak to the protected person. 2. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same without change.' It will be apparent from the above that although the amended order did not positively state that Ziaolleh could be present at a religious at which Zahra ‘community event’ was also present, it was implicit that the new paragraph 6(g) permitted him to do so, and forbad him to approach or speak to Zahra while both were present at such an event.
2. The defendant was not to contact, harass, threaten, follow or intimidate Zahra or cause or allow another person to do any of those things; 3. The defendant was not to contact, harass, threaten or intimidate any person at Zahra’s place of residence or work nor to allow any other person to do any of those things.' When the matter came before the Court for the disputed confirmation hearing on 9 March 2010, the position was that the restraining order was disputed by Ziaolleh. It was necessary for the prosecutor, Sergeant Smith, to prove that a permanent order should be granted. For that purpose she had to be ready to proceed as if all matters were in dispute. However, on the day, the solicitor for Ziaolleh informed the court that the matter could be resolved by Ziaolleh consenting to the order, but with a modification. The requested modification was that because Ziaolleh was asserted to be a cultural leader within his community, he should be permitted to attend cultural and religious functions in that capacity. The intent of the application was that the order would not prevent Ziaolleh from being present at such a cultural event, even if Zahra were present at the same event. The solicitor for Ziaolleh had clearly failed to appreciate that there was nothing in the existing interim order to prevent such a thing from occurring. Nor apparently had Sergeant Smith because it was left to the clerk of the court to inform the presiding magistrate that nothing in the interim order prevented such a circumstance from occurring. In any event, after discussions between Sergeant Smith and Zahra and Arman, who were present at the court on that day, the order was confirmed in a varied format. The following addendum was made: '1. Order confirmed: The domestic violence restraining order is varied by inserting a new paragraph 6(g): In the event both the defendant and protected person are at a community religious event, the defendant is not to approach or speak to the protected person. 2. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same without change.' It will be apparent from the above that although the amended order did not positively state that Ziaolleh could be present at a ‘community religious event’ at which Zahra was also present, it was implicit that the new paragraph 6(g) permitted him to do so, and forbad him to approach or speak to Zahra while both were present at such an event.