Stapylton v R

A criminal court may make a compensation order only where there is reliable evidence of the injury, loss or damage suffered by the proposed recipient. The procedure is for straightforward cases and should not require a detailed inquiry better suited to civil proceedings. Compensation cannot be awarded for general inconvenience or unsupported distress. The court must also assess whether the offender has a realistic prospect of paying; an order likely to endure for many years may be inappropriate. Damage caused after a vehicle has left the road may nevertheless arise from an accident involving its presence on a road.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Luton to dangerous driving after driving another person's car dangerously, leaving the road and damaging a house and garage. The sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence, driving disqualification, costs and compensation totalling £8,100.

The compensation included £5,000 for the householders' insurer, £3,000 for replacement of the car and £100 for the householders' alleged expenses and inconvenience. The appellant had limited means and was receiving jobseeker's allowance. He appealed, with leave, against the compensation order only.

The central issues were whether the statutory motor-vehicle restriction permitted the order and whether there was sufficient evidence of loss and a realistic prospect of payment.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the compensation order.
2. The fact that the vehicle had left the road before striking the garage did not prevent the damage from arising from an accident involving the presence of a motor vehicle on a road. Mayor v Oxford (1980) 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 280, applying the predecessor provision, resolved that point.
3. A compensation order under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 130 requires adequate evidence of the recipient's actual loss. The court applied the principles in R v Horsham Justices ex p Richards [1985] 1 WLR 986 and the subsequent compensation authorities: the criminal jurisdiction is unsuitable where real issues exist about whether loss was suffered and in what amount.
4. There was no evidence at sentencing of the loss concerning the car, or whether its owner or an insurer bore it. The £100 awarded to the householders could not stand because their evidenced expenses were covered by the insurance payment, and compensation is confined to injury, loss or damage rather than general inconvenience or unsupported distress.
5. The judge had only a statement that the householders' insurer had paid £5,000. Material details of the repair cost, policy and insurer emerged only after sentencing. The judge also failed to consider whether this unemployed young offender could realistically pay such a substantial sum. At £100 per month, the order would have continued for many years. The court did not resolve the prosecution's submission concerning payment to a subrogated insurer under section 130(6)(b), since the evidential and means defects independently required the order to be quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the compensation order and quashed that order.
• Crown Court at Luton: Following the appellant's guilty plea to dangerous driving, imposed a suspended sentence order, driving disqualification, costs and compensation.