Trott, R. v

A post-acquittal restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a serious measure. The person affected must be given a proper opportunity to understand the proposed order and its basis, and to make representations before it is made. The court must not impose the order merely because an acquitted person may feel aggrieved about the prosecution. The statutory power is directed to a future risk and requires an evidential factual basis for a need to protect the proposed protected person.

The appellant was tried at Croydon Crown Court on an allegation that he had caused grievous bodily harm to his former girlfriend by fracturing her jaw. A 999 recording emerging before trial indicated that she had initially attributed the injury to others. The Crown offered no evidence and the appellant was formally acquitted.

Despite the acquittal, the Crown Court made a two-year restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, prohibiting contact with the complainant. The judge referred to the appellant's understandable grievance at having been charged and remanded in custody, and to a desire to prevent future trouble.

The appellant appealed against the order. The central issue was whether it had been lawfully and fairly imposed without an opportunity for him to address the proposed order or its terms.

1. Appeal allowed. The restraining order was quashed.

2. The court applied the procedural guidance in R v K [2011] EWCA Crim 1843. A restraining order is a serious matter. The procedures identified in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 are intended to ensure that a person who may be made subject to such an order understands what is proposed and why, and has a proper opportunity to make representations.

3. That safeguard was absent. Before the order was imposed, the appellant had no warning or meaningful opportunity, through counsel or otherwise, to consider whether an order was necessary and well-founded, or to address its appropriateness and terms. The pressure of a busy criminal list did not justify that denial of procedural fairness.

4. The court also noted the statutory framework stated in R v Major [2010] EWCA Crim 3016: the civil standard applies; an order requires an identified factual basis grounded in evidence; and the power concerns a future risk and need for protection. Those principles did not cure the deficient procedure adopted below.

5. The judge's sympathy for the appellant's grievance about the failed prosecution could not provide a fair basis for imposing the order without first hearing submissions on whether protection was necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the appeal and quashed the two-year restraining order.
• Crown Court at Croydon. Following the Crown's offer of no evidence, the appellant was formally acquitted of inflicting grievous bodily harm. The court nevertheless imposed a restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.