Boland, R. v

A travel restriction order may be imposed only for an offence for which Criminal Justice Act and Police Act, section 33, confers that power. The court has no power to impose such an order following a conviction for possession of a Class A controlled drug with intent to supply, even where the underlying facts suggest that the offender brought the drugs into the United Kingdom. The order must therefore be quashed.

The appellant was convicted at Canterbury in 2009 of possessing a Class A controlled drug with intent to supply. He received 12 years’ imprisonment and a travel restriction order under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act and Police Act.

The appellant did not challenge any other part of the sentence. The application was referred to the Full Court, which granted leave and treated the matter as the appeal. The central issue was whether section 33 permitted a travel restriction order for possession with intent to supply.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The travel restriction order was quashed. Leave to appeal was granted and the application was treated as the hearing of the appeal.
2. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act and Police Act gave no power to impose a travel restriction order for an offence of possession with intent to supply. The judge therefore lacked jurisdiction to make that part of the sentence.
3. The factual assertion that the appellant had brought the drugs into the United Kingdom could not cure the absence of statutory power. A charge under the Customs & Excise Management Act might have engaged the power, but no such charge had been brought.
4. The court reiterated the concern expressed in R v Whittle [2007] EWCA Crim 539: actual supply was included within the statutory scheme, whereas possession with intent to supply was not. That apparent anomaly did not permit the court to extend the statutory power.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave and allowed the appeal only to the extent of quashing the travel restriction order.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: In 2009, convicted the appellant of possession of a Class A controlled drug with intent to supply; imposed 12 years’ imprisonment and a travel restriction order.