York, R.

Before making a criminal compensation order, the court must enquire into, make findings about, and take account of the offender’s means. The order must be realistic: the court must be satisfied that the offender has, or will have, the means to pay it within a reasonable time.

The court must not assume that an offender without means will be assisted by a relative. It must itself determine affordable instalments and an appropriate repayment period. It is wrong to set a sum without regard to those matters and leave the payment regime to the magistrates’ court.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Plymouth to being in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. The judge imposed a community order with 150 hours’ unpaid work and ordered her to pay £1,000 compensation to the injured person.

The appellant had very limited income, no disposable income, and significant caring responsibilities. The sentencing judge recognised that the payment was at the limit of her means and that her daughter might in practice assist with payment. He left the payment regime to the magistrates’ court.

The appeal challenged the compensation order as wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed in relation to compensation. The court quashed the £1,000 compensation order because it was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

2. An offender must provide details of means. Before making a compensation order, the sentencing court must enquire into those means, make clear findings, and take them into account. The order should be made only where it is realistic to conclude that the offender has, or will have, the means to pay within a reasonable time.

3. Although a repayment period of two or three years may be unobjectionable in an exceptional case, excessively long repayment periods should generally be avoided. The court must not make an order against an offender without means on the assumption that a relative or another person will pay it.

4. The sentencing court must set compensation by reference to the instalments the offender can afford and the period over which they can be paid. It cannot fix an amount without addressing those matters and leave the magistrates’ court to resolve the payment regime.

5. Here, the judge had acknowledged both the appellant’s inability to pay and the likelihood that her elder daughter would make the payments. Those circumstances demonstrated that the required principles had not been observed. The community order was not disturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the compensation order and quashed it.
• Crown Court at Plymouth: On 12 July 2018, following the appellant’s guilty plea, imposed a community order with 150 hours’ unpaid work and ordered £1,000 compensation.