Pelletier R. v

Criminal liability for breach of an ancillary order depends on the order actually made by the judge. An erroneous court-office record cannot enlarge its terms. Accordingly, a conviction based on conduct prohibited only by the erroneous written version must be quashed, even where the defendant pleaded guilty.

As a matter of judicial practice, ancillary orders should be prepared in writing, approved or amended by the judge, and retained with the court papers. A defendant’s signed acknowledgement of receipt is desirable but is not a formal requirement.

In 2005 the appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court for offences of possessing indecent images of children. The judge orally made a Sexual Offences Prevention Order directed to taking unaccompanied children in the course of the appellant’s work.

In 2010 the appellant was found driving a 14-year-old boy at night. He pleaded guilty to breach of the order, while an abduction charge was left on the file. The written order issued by the court office contained a wider prohibition, not limited to work. The appeal concerned whether the guilty plea could sustain a conviction when the conduct did not breach the order actually pronounced by the judge.

1. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed. The order binding the appellant was the order made and announced by the sentencing judge, not the differently worded order later issued by the Crown Court office. The judge’s order was confined to taking unaccompanied children in the course of work. The written record improperly omitted that limitation.
2. The appellant’s conduct in driving the boy did not therefore breach the order actually made. On the agreed facts he was not guilty of the offence, notwithstanding his eventual guilty plea. That conclusion was sufficient to allow the appeal and quash the conviction.
3. Ancillary-order practice. The court observed that discrepancies between an orally made ancillary order and its later record must be avoided. Judges should require a written draft, approve or amend it, and ensure the approved document is retained with the papers so that the office can reproduce the order accurately. Obtaining the defendant’s signature for receipt of an order of this kind would be sensible, although it is not a formal requirement.
4. The Crown did not seek leave to proceed on the abduction charge. The court stressed that no finding had been made as to that allegation, but that the relevant alleged facts should be known to the police responsible for administering the appellant’s notification requirements and later Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The application for a defence costs order was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal in [2012] EWCA Crim 1060 and quashed the conviction for breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order.
• First-instance criminal proceedings The appellant pleaded guilty to breach of the order after being found driving with a 14-year-old boy. The abduction charge was left on the file.
• Crown Court In 2005, following guilty pleas to offences involving indecent images of children, the sentencing judge made the oral order whose scope was later misstated in the court-office document.