This appeal raises the issue of whether a post acquittal restraining order made under section 5A of the 1997 Act was properly made against the Appellant after he had been acquitted of offences of making threats to kill, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, theft and criminal damage.
Held: this is an order which is imposed after an acquittal. It may be imposed even where the prosecution has offered no evidence. A restraining order is a civil order and does not reflect on the guilt of the appellant. The civil standard of proof applies, see R v Major at paragraph 15. Section 5A of the 1997 Act addresses a future risk of behaviour by the appellant which might amount to harassment. . . There has to be a course of conduct which might alarm a person or cause distress. There has to be an identification of the victim. This is because the order is for the protection of a particular vulnerable person or possibly an identifiable group of vulnerable persons, see R v Smith at paragraph 27. The legislation was aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence, but was not limited to such circumstances. The order must be ‘necessary … to protect a person from harassment’ and the word necessary must not be ignored . . Although an order may be made after acquittal it must be made on the evidence.
Lord Justice Dingemans
[2021] EWCA Crim 703
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5A
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Khan, Regina v CACD 21-Oct-2021
The applicant having been discharged of offences under the 1988 Act, the Court nevertheless imposed an order on him in his absence under the 1997 Act prohibiting him from contacting the complainant for a period of 10 years. He sought to appeal from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.662499
