Humphries, R. v

A restraining order made under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 must state its prohibitions in clear, precise and practical terms. A geographic restriction framed by reference to an undefined town centre is defective where it leaves uncertainty about the area prohibited. The defendant must be able to know exactly what conduct and locations are forbidden. A radius restriction is not necessarily invalid, but an order may instead need to identify specific roads or an address, and may require a map.

The appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence after admitting breach of a restraining order protecting LB and after pleading guilty to common assault and witness intimidation involving SM. On 6 July 2005, the Crown Court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totalling 16 months and made separate five-year restraining orders for LB and SM.

The order concerning LB also prohibited entry within one mile of Feltham town centre and two miles of Hanworth town centre. The appellant appealed that geographic limb by leave of the single judge. He contended that the boundaries were uncertain and that the restriction could prevent him from living with his grandparents.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court deleted the geographic limb of the restraining order protecting LB. It retained, with amendment, the prohibition on contact with LB and her immediate family for five years. The order protecting SM remained unchanged.
2. The power to make the order arose under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as amended. In exercising that power, a restraining order must be drafted clearly and precisely so that the defendant knows what is prohibited.
3. The order should also be practical. Specific roads or a specific address may provide a clearer restriction than a general area. A radius restriction is not inherently invalid and a map may be needed where necessary. This approach accorded with R v Robert Beck, 28th July 2003, paragraph 9.
4. The terms “Feltham town centre” and “Hanworth town centre” did not identify sufficiently certain boundaries. The evidence showed uncertainty both as to the extent of each area and as to whether the appellant's grandparents' home could fall within the prohibited area. The second limb was therefore neither clear, precise nor practical, and had to be removed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2005] EWCA Crim 3469, the court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of deleting the uncertain geographic restriction in the order protecting LB.
• Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court: On 6 July 2005, Her Honour Judge Matthews QC imposed sentences totalling 16 months' imprisonment and made restraining orders concerning LB and SM.