Hall & Ors, R. v

A serious crime prevention order under section 19 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 may supplement, rather than duplicate, an offender’s licence conditions. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the order will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting serious crime. That requires a real or significant future risk, not a bare possibility.

The order is preventive, not punitive. Its restrictions must be proportionate to the risk and no wider than reasonably necessary. They must also be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision for the subject and those enforcing it to know what conduct is permitted. A sound decision to make an order in principle does not validate terms drafted so broadly that they create unintended restrictions.

The applicants had pleaded guilty to conspiracies to commit armed robberies and associated firearms offences. They received lengthy determinate sentences. The Crown Court later imposed five-year serious crime prevention orders, commencing on their release from prison.

They renewed applications for leave to appeal after refusal by the single judge. Knight also sought an extension of time. They contended that the orders were unnecessary given their future licence conditions and that several restrictions were disproportionate, uncertain or unworkable. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had grounds to make the orders and whether their terms lawfully protected the public.

1. Leave to appeal and Knight’s extension of time were granted. The court upheld the judge’s decision to impose serious crime prevention orders in principle.

2. The judge had correctly applied section 19 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The applicants’ long-running, organised and armed offending, their preparation and equipment, and the assessed future risk gave reasonable grounds to believe that orders would protect the public. The required risk was real or significant rather than speculative, consistently with R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] Cr App R(S) 74.

3. A serious crime prevention order serves a preventive purpose and may operate alongside licence conditions. Parliament intended it to be a distinct regime, with different enforcement methods and sanctions. The prospect that licence conditions might last longer did not make an order unnecessary or unlawful.

4. The restrictions had to be proportionate to the risk, no wider than reasonably necessary, and sufficiently clear and precise. The sentencing judge had made a nuanced proportionality assessment, including by excluding an association restriction. But parts of the drafted orders were very broad and could produce unintended consequences, including restrictions arising from ordinary travel or parking near a bank.

5. The applicants were directed to redraft the orders within 14 days while preserving their protective purpose. The Crown and then the applicants were to make written submissions, after which the court would determine and hand down the new orders.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for leave to appeal against the serious crime prevention orders were granted. The orders were upheld in principle, but their drafting was to be reconsidered through written submissions.
• Crown Court at Inner London: imposed five-year serious crime prevention orders under the Serious Crime Act 2007 on 14 March 2014.