The defendants appealed against the imposition on them of serious crime prevention orders under section 19 of the 2007 Act.
Held: The appeals failed. To make the order, the court must satisfy itself that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the order would provide public protection by preventing, restricting or disruption the involvement of the defendants in serious crime as defined. Inevitably that judgment looked to the future, and the court must find a real or significant risk, and not just a bare possibility that the order would have that effect. A general anticipation of public benefit was insufficient. The sentence did not form part if any punishment, and its imposition required strict compliance with the section.
Hughes, Rafferty, Hedley LJJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 102, [2010] 1 WLR 1434, [2010] Crim LR 431, [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 74, [2010] 4 All ER 537, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 307
Bailii, Times, WLR
Serious Crime Act 2007 19 24
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Mee CACD 23-Feb-2004
The defendant appealed against a travel restriction order made on his conviction on a plea for fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug.
Held: When making any such order the court was obliged to give reasons. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.396604
