[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 >> Boland, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 1953 (28 June 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/1953.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Crim 1953

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		28th June 2012

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This has been referred to the Full Court by the Registrar as an application and for reasons which will become clear, we grant leave to appeal and since those representing Mr Boland have been contacted and have agreed that they do not wish to appeal any other part of the sentence than that which we are going to deal with now, there is no attendance and they are content that we treat this as the hearing of the appeal.
2. The appellant was convicted in 2009 in Canterbury of possessing a controlled drug of Class A with intent. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, but in addition the judge imposed a travel restriction order under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act and Police Act. Unfortunately, under that Act there is no power to impose a travel restriction order for an offence of possession with intent to supply. In fact this was a case where the appellant had been responsible for bringing the drugs into this country but for reasons which were said to be covered by public interest immunity the Customs were not involved and there was no charge of breach of the Customs & Excise Management Act. If there had been, then the power to impose the travel restriction order would have applied.
3. As long ago as 2007 in R v Whittle [2007] EWCA Crim 539, this court had the same problem to deal with and asked why this offence, possession with intent to supply, was not included as one upon which a travel restriction order could be made, since actual supply was so included.
4. We merely repeat what that court then said 5 years on. As it is the appeal must be allowed to the extent that the travel restriction order is quashed.