My work as an internet law specialist takes me to various courts. Sometimes, it’s the Crown Court to defend social media posts, and other times, I’m in American courts, seeking subpoenas from social media platforms to uncover the true identities of internet trolls. Recently, however, I found myself in a family court, handling a particularly intriguing case involving former Spice Girl Mel B (Melanie Brown, also known as Scary Spice). You might be wondering, what’s an internet law specialist doing in a family court? Well, read on to find out!
Why was Mel B slammed with a cost order following her application for a restraining order against former husband Stephen Belafonte
Courts don’t usually make a cost order against an applicant in restraining order cases, as these orders are designed to protect individuals, in nearly all cases, women, who feel threatened or are at risk of harm. Typically, courts aim to protect vulnerable applicants without penalising them financially. However, in a recent court case, brought by Mel B against her former husband, Stephen Belafonte, whom I represented, the court took the rare step of ordering her to pay Stephen Belafonte’s legal costs after her application for a non-molestation order was revoked. This was primarily due to procedural errors and questions surrounding the legitimacy of her request.
Background of the court Case Melanie Brown v Stephen Belafonte
I recently represented Stephen Belafonte, who has earlier filed a defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife, Melanie Janine Brown (Mel B) of the Spice Girls. The lawsuit, filed in Florida, accuses Brown of falsely alleging serious crimes such as physical assault, rape, emotional abuse, and sex trafficking. In response, Mel B made a non-molestation application in the UK, now at the centre of this case.
On 21 June 2024, Mel B applied for an emergency non-molestation order against her ex-husband, Stephen Belafonte, while he was briefly in London. The order was sought under a procedure meant to protect individuals, mostly women, from immediate threats in a domestic situation. Mr Belafonte, who resides in the US, was unaware of the proceedings and had left the UK on the same day the application was filed.
Mel B, sought the order, claiming that Mr Belafonte posed a current threat, despite them only communicating via a US family court platform. The judge granted the emergency order without notifying Mr Belafonte, based solely on Mel B’s witness statement. The court noted that the order would be discharged if Mr Belafonte was about to leave the UK or had already left the UK, as such orders cannot be enforced against someone residing permanently abroad.
As is typical with emergency orders, they last only long enough to notify the respondent and allow them to defend themselves.
Why the court revoked the non-molestation order
At the return hearing on 27 June 2024, Mr Belafonte successfully challenged the order, presenting evidence that contradicted Mel B’s claims. This included evidence that she was aware of his visit to London and that she had omitted key information from her application. The judge ruled that a non-molestation order cannot be granted solely to give the applicant “peace of mind.” The court did not find that Mel B’s case met the necessary legal test for such an order to be made permanent.
Mel B had applied for the order while Belafonte was briefly in the UK, but there were significant concerns about the accuracy of her claims, and discrepancies in her statements came to light during the proceedings.
Discrepancies and misleading statements were pointed out to the court by Belafonte’s legal team, including the fact that she had claimed to be unaware of Belafonte’s visit to the UK. However, the judge was very clear about this point when she stated in relation to Mel B’s evidence:
“…That is now in dispute, and also the other matter relied upon in terms of recent conduct was that she (Mel B) had no idea that he (Mr Belafonte) was coming to this country or anything of that nature, which I am afraid the emails do suggest was not the case…”
This evidence severely undermined her case and this followed by a strong indication from the judge that should Mel B continue with the application, it would be unlikely to be allowed. The judge therefore gave Mel B an opportunity to withdraw her application before delivering her own public judgment on the merit of the application and on the credibility of the evidence presented by Mel B.
Additionally, whilst the court did not comment directly on the evidence provided, the ruling indicated a lack of substantial and imminent threat in her application. The court was presented with evidence that Mel B and Mr Belafonte had only communicated through court-mandated channels for some time, and of the absence of recent conduct that could justify the order.
Faced with the court’s findings and procedural issues, Mel B withdrew her application just before the judge was set to make a formal ruling.
Why did the judge order Mel B to pay the legal costs of Mr Belafonte
All orders against Mr Belafonte were subsequently discharged. Despite Mel B’s request to avoid paying legal costs, the court ordered her to cover Mr Belafonte’s legal expenses, a rare outcome in family court cases. Mel B, through her legal representatives, told the judge that because she was assisted by a charity, she did not believe it was fair to order her to pay Mr Belafonte’s legal costs.
The judge made it clear that Mel B’s conduct in the case was a key factor in the decision to impose costs. The judge remarked:
“…You cannot say today, ‘well, there are good reasons for us having to make the application… and therefore, the costs should not follow the event’…”
The judge explained to Mel B that in order to avoid her paying Mr Belafonte legal costs, she was willing to have another hearing where Mel B will have an opportunity to dispute Mr Belafonte claims that she had provided the court with misleading and incomplete information when she had applied for the emergency court order a few days earlier. Mel B declined and agreed to the judge’s ruling that she pay Mr Belafonte’s legal costs.
Why did Mel B send private communications to the judge
One major issue, which was only discovered by Mr Belafonte’s legal team on the day of the full hearing, was Mel B’s attempt to expedite the process by having her lawyers privately contacting the judge via email, which the court deemed highly inappropriate. Such actions can undermine the fairness and transparency of the legal process, as courts are required to treat all parties equally and follow proper procedures. Attempting to jump the queue, especially in cases involving domestic violence or harassment where real threats may exist, delays protection for those most in need. The court found no justification for her private communication with the judge or her attempt to prioritise her case over others. This is what the judge said:
“You cannot email me using that address. I made it very clear…and I think all judges are the same, that you do not attempt to communicate directly with the judiciary. You go through the court office and it is not for you to decide what is urgent and for my attention, and what the court office should not have to deal with”
My thoughts on the case
Non-molestation orders are a crucial tool designed to protect individuals, particularly women, who are in immediate danger due to domestic abuse or harassment. These orders can effectively remove an abusive spouse or partner from the family home and prevent them from further contact with the victim. Almost daily, I speak to women facing real, ongoing abuse and harassment. They come to the court seeking help to remove the immediate threat posed by their abusers, who often continue to threaten and abuse them.
Because of the nature of these situations, the court allows victims to obtain a non-molestation order quickly, based solely on their witness statement and without notifying the alleged abuser. Essentially, the court is willing to trust the victim’s word at face value, at least initially, without it being challenged. This is a vital lifeline for those in genuine danger.
However, I was surprised to see my client, Stephen Belafonte, subjected to this procedure when there had been little to no contact between him and Mel B, the alleged victim. This is not what these types of orders are intended for. In cases where the system is abused or misused, it is the genuine victims who suffer most—those who have no other option but to turn to the court for protection.
It was also surprising to learn that Mel B did not pay her legal team, who represented her on a charitable basis. While my firm also does a significant amount of pro-bono work, we, like other organisations, can only offer so much free legal assistance. When individuals with sufficient financial resources, like Mel B, take advantage of charitable legal services, it means those truly in need may miss out on essential legal representation. If someone can afford to pay for their legal proceedings but instead relies on charity, they misuse the charity’s resources, leaving others without support.
Finally, I believe that no one is above the law, and no one deserves special treatment. When someone tries to jump the queue with their application for legal protection, they are effectively saying their case is more important than others—perhaps more important than those who lack the financial resources to navigate the legal system. The judge was absolutely right to admonish Mel B for attempting to seek special treatment unavailable to others, particularly since she presents herself as a champion for women. Justice must remain open and transparent. No one should have secret, privileged access to the court.
You can read more about the case of Melony Brown v Stephen Belafonte including access to the cost judgement.