shootist wrote:All will depend upon individual circumstances. Indirect contact might include a phone order for flowers to be delivered, an advert in a newspaper known to be read by the victim, it really does depend upon the whole of the circumstances. Contact might mean something as basic as walking past the victim, even by chance. My advice to anyone the subject of a restraining order who happens to see the (alleged) victim walking towards them in the street would be to cross the road to avoid them. Simply walking past them in close proximity could count.
I believe that there are cases where a person has sought a restraining order and then made efforts to act in a manner designed to ensure the person subject of the order breaches it. IIRC, the order still stands but there may then be grounds for the order to be set aside, or for a court to make one for each party. I'm unfamiliar with the exact terms of these orders as they were not about when I might have encountered them professionally.
I understand your first response in that it could be deemed to be an attempt to work around the restraining order. The issue with this is, what if that was not the intent? And where do you draw the line? It can lead to an unofficial restraining order preventing contact with ANY of a complainant's close circle of friends or family. This is why, IMO, it needs to be construed narrowly. It is up to the mother, in this example, whether to inform her daughter as to what was said.
I did contact Liberty over this issue many years ago and their view was that a restraining order was there to prevent deliberate contact. This would cover example B but not A, unless the intention was to circumvent the order. However, the fact that others seemingly have differing opinions suggest that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way that restraining orders are applied. They need to be clearer and better defined.
The definition I read stated that "directly or indirectly" meant that a person could not ask another person to pass a message on but it didn't prevent them from talking about that person. That's a narrow construct and how most ordinary people would read the definition of "indirect".