Thompson, R. v

Following an acquittal, a court may make a restraining order under section 5A where it finds the order necessary to protect a person from future harassment by the defendant. The court may examine the trial evidence for that purpose without impermissibly going behind the jury’s verdict. It must focus on future protection, not on moral judgment, public expense, convenience, or the defendant’s own interests. The order must be no wider than necessary and proportionate. Compliance with restrictive bail conditions does not by itself show that a restraining order is unnecessary, because breach of bail carries an immediate custodial consequence.

The appellant was tried at Isleworth Crown Court on allegations of common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his former partner. He was acquitted of the two substantive counts, and the prosecution offered no evidence on an alternative count of common assault.

After the acquittals, the Recorder made a 12-month restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It prohibited direct or indirect contact and attendance at, or within 100 metres of, the complainant’s home. The appellant appealed, contending that the order went behind the jury’s verdict and was unnecessary, particularly because he had complied with bail conditions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to find that a restraining order was necessary to protect the complainant from future harassment by the appellant.

2. The Recorder did not go behind the acquittals. She properly considered the evidence heard at trial when deciding the separate statutory question under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That evidence included the appellant’s acceptance that he had physically handled the complainant, including around the throat, and that she had sustained injuries during the incident.

3. The statutory inquiry was whether an order was necessary and, if so, whether it would protect the complainant from harassment by the appellant. The Recorder correctly excluded irrelevant considerations, including the appellant’s morality, public cost, court convenience, possible civil proceedings, and the appellant’s own interests.

4. The order was proportionate. It was confined to a 12-month prohibition on direct or indirect contact and to protection of the complainant’s home and its immediate vicinity.

5. The absence of a breach while the appellant was on conditional bail did not render the order unnecessary. Bail compliance occurred against the powerful deterrent that breach would lead to an immediate return to custody. There was no reason for the Court of Appeal to interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the restraining order.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: after the appellant’s acquittal on the substantive assault counts, the Recorder made a 12-month restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.