[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Humphries, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 3469 (2 December 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/3469.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Crim 3469

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 2nd December 2005

1. MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL: The offences described in this judgment relate to two former partners of the appellant, to whom we will refer as LB and SM. On 20th September 2002, at the Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court the appellant, who is 24, pleaded guilty to one count of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment and one of false imprisonment. On 1st November 2002 he was sentenced to a two-year community rehabilitation order, and a two-year restraining order was imposed under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, prohibiting him from contacting LB or her family, directly or indirectly, and from coming within one mile of an address in Hampton, Middlesex. The order directed that the appellant live at an address in Somerset after spending one night at his grandparents' home in Bedford, Middlesex.
2. On 20th March 2003, at the Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown Court, for breaching the restraining order, the community rehabilitation order was revoked and the appellant was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. A restraining order was imposed which replaced the previous order. The replacement order prohibited the appellant from contacting LB or any member of her family directly or indirectly and from entering the Feltham or Hanworth area of Middlesex.
3. On 19th April 2005, at the Feltham Magistrates' Court, the appellant admitted breaching the replacement restraining order and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The order had effect until 1st November 2004. On 12th May 2005, at the North Surrey Magistrates' Court, the appellant pleaded guilty to offences of common assault and witness intimidation and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
4. On 6th July 2005 at the Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court the appellant was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Matthews QC as follows. The committal for sentence from North Surrey, offence one, common assault of SM, four months' imprisonment; offence two, witness intimidation (SM), nine months' imprisonment consecutive; committal for sentence from Feltham, breach of a restraining order, three months' imprisonment consecutive. The total sentence of imprisonment amounted to 16 months' imprisonment.
5. In relation to LB the judge made a restraining order which prohibited the appellant from (a) contacting LB or her family directly or indirectly for a period of five years, and (b) entering within one mile of Feltham town centre, or entering within two miles of Hanworth town centre for a period of two years. In relation to SM, the judge made a restraining order for a period of five years which prohibited the appellant from (a) contacting SM or her family directly or indirectly, and (b) coming within a mile of a specified address in Stanwell.
6. The appellant appeals against the restraining order relating to LB by leave of the single judge.
7. The short facts of the offences were as follows. On 11th May 2004, LB received a telephone call from the appellant, who said, "Don't hang up I need you". He told her that his uncle was ill, which turned out to be untrue. The call was traced and it came from a telephone box near the appellant's home.
8. On 25th June 2004, the appellant went to the home of his partner SM. During a dispute he took hold of a Stanley knife and used it to harm himself. The emergency services were called and the appellant was taken to hospital.
9. On 26th June the appellant went back to SM's home purporting to collect belongings. There was a dispute which resulted in the appellant hitting SM on the shoulder with his open palm, thereby causing bruising. A neighbour came to the door concerned about what was going on. When SM went to the door to try and get away, the appellant pulled her from the door. The police were called.
10. There was a second offence of common assault on 13th July 2004 involving SM. On 9th November of the same year, at the North Surrey Magistrates' Court, for that offence the appellant was sentenced to an 18 month community rehabilitation order.
11. At about 11 pm on 18th July 2004, SM was preparing to go to bed. The appellant turned up at her home, let himself in, went up to the bedroom and said he had popped in for a coffee and a chat. He sat on the end of the bed and asked SM whether she was going to press charges. He put his hand across her throat and held her throat so that she had difficulty breathing. He eventually calmed down and left. The incident lasted about an hour. The appellant was arrested on 19th July 2004. In interview he made no comment.
12. We have seen a number of reports: an addendum report dated 23 May 2005 by Dr Doctor, a consultant psychiatrist; a letter from the Domestic Violence Intervention Project; a letter from John Laing Training; and a pre-sentence report.
13. Miss Culling in her submissions before this court, and in her skeleton argument, emphasises that the only part of the sentence against which the appellant wishes to appeal is the part of the sentence prohibiting the appellant from going within one mile of Feltham town centre and within two miles of Hanworth.
14. Miss Culling submits as follows. That part of the sentence is unnecessary and manifestly excessive, as it would have the effect of rendering the appellant homeless upon his release from custody. The sentence is wrong in principle for the same reasons. The appellant's only place of abode is with his grandparents in Bedford. This is part of Feltham and within two miles of Hanworth. Such a sentence would render him homeless upon his release from custody and thereby hinder his rehabilitation into the community. The objective of preventing contact between the appellant and LB would be equally well achieved by the part of the order which prohibits him from contacting LB or her family. LB did not want her current address to be given in open court and it was therefore not possible to frame a restraining order in the form "within X miles of [a stated address]". The distance between the appellant's grandparents' home and the centre of Feltham exceeds one mile, but the distance between the appellant's grandparents' home and the High Street, which is the main shopping area, is barely one mile. The town centre shopping area extends slightly north-west of the High Street, which is further towards the appellant's grandparents' address and within one mile thereof. Everything depends upon how the town centre is defined. The distance between the appellant's grandparents' home and the nearest edge of the main part of Hanworth appears to be two and a half to three miles. However, Hanworth Park and Uxbridge Road, which could arguably said to be part of Hanworth, appear to be not quite two miles away. Again everything depends on how Hanworth is defined.
15. We turn to consider these submissions. The power to impose the order with which this court is concerned is set out in section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as subsequently amended. We refer to subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of section 5.
16. A restraining order must be drafted in clear and precise terms, so there is no doubt as to what the defendant is prohibited from doing. Orders should also be framed in practical terms, for example it may be preferable to frame restriction orders by reference to specific roads or a specific address. A radius restriction will not necessarily invalidate an order. If necessary a map should be prepared; R v Robert Beck, 28th July 2003, Mance LJ, paragraph 9.
17. For the reasons advanced by Miss Culling in the present case, the second limb of the restraining order in relation to LB was not drafted in clear, precise, or practical terms. There is uncertainty as to what is intended by the town centre of Feltham and the Hanworth town centre, and where the town centres are found. It is most important that a defendant, subject to such a restraining order, should know in precise and clear terms what is and what is not prohibited.
18. In all the circumstances, we consider that the second limb of the restraining order in the case of LB should be deleted. We amend the first limb to prohibit the appellant from contacting LB or her immediate family in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly, for a period of five years. Thus, the first limb will stand in the case of LB, amended as above. Both limbs of the order in relation to SM will stand. To this limited extent this appeal is allowed.