Favell, R. v

When fixing a compensation order and instalments, a sentencing court must have regard to the offender’s means under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 130(11). It may assess those means from business accounts, prior earnings and information given to probation.

An appellate court will interfere with that assessment only where the sentencing judge’s conclusion was unsupported by the evidence and unreasonable. A realistic instalment arrangement may extend over more than two years. If the offender later lacks sufficient means, or suffers an unexpected substantial reduction in means, section 133 provides a mechanism to discharge or reduce the unpaid balance.

The appellant had pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to inflicting grievous bodily harm after punching the victim, causing jaw fractures, tooth loss, treatment costs and lost earnings. The Recorder imposed a suspended sentence order, 200 hours’ unpaid work and compensation of £5,000, payable at £50 weekly.

The appellant accepted that £5,000 reflected the victim’s loss. He appealed only against the compensation order, contending that his reduced earnings and outgoings meant that he could not afford it or that it should be reduced. The central issue was whether the Recorder’s assessment of his means and the instalment arrangement could properly stand.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to make the £5,000 compensation order and to require payment at £50 per week.
2. Under section 130(11) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Recorder had to consider the appellant’s means when setting both the amount and the instalments. The evidence included the appellant’s accounts, his earlier substantially higher profits, and his statement to the probation officer that he earned about £500 weekly without financial difficulty. The Recorder was entitled to treat that statement as accurate and to find a realistic prospect of higher earnings in the short term, despite the downturn in construction.
3. The Court of Appeal would intervene only if the Recorder’s conclusion on means was unsupported by the evidence and unreasonable. That threshold was not met. The Recorder had expressly reduced the intended weekly payment to reflect the downturn and had tailored the order accordingly.
4. An arrangement taking more than two years to satisfy was not open to criticism. The observations concerning fines in R v Oliver and Oliver (1989) 11 Cr App R(S) 10 were equally valid for compensation orders.
5. Section 133 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 supplied a safeguard if the appellant’s means failed to improve or deteriorated. The enforcing magistrates’ court could discharge the order or reduce the unpaid balance for insufficient means or an unexpected substantial reduction in means. Although Crown Court consent was required, it would not be withheld where the offender could not pay.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the compensation order was dismissed.
• Sheffield Crown Court: The Recorder imposed a suspended sentence order, 200 hours’ unpaid work, and compensation of £5,000 payable at £50 weekly following a guilty plea to inflicting grievous bodily harm.