Richards, R. v

A geographic restriction in a restraining order may extend to an entire town where that is necessary and reasonable to protect victims and children from a real risk of violence. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court must assess the order’s purpose, necessity, and reasonableness in relation to the identified risk. Such broad orders are rare and require a fact-specific evaluation. A restriction limited to a victim’s home may be inadequate where the offender presents a continuing risk of encountering the victim elsewhere, has disregarded previous orders, and has local connections. The availability of variation or discharge may mitigate the interference with family life.

The appellant pleaded guilty at St Albans Crown Court to threatening to kill, sexual assault, and two offences of perverting the course of public justice. The offences arose from persistent abusive and controlling conduct towards his former partner, with whom he had children.

He received an extended sentence of nine years and four months’ imprisonment and a ten-year restraining order. The order prohibited contact with his former partner, subject to family-court directions concerning the children, and prohibited him from entering Stevenage, where she, the children, and his own family lived.

He appealed only the town-wide exclusion, contending that it was unnecessary and disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that an order limited to the complainant’s address would suffice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The city-wide restriction was lawful and proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. The appellant retained Article 8 rights despite imprisonment, but they were qualified. Article 8(2) permitted judicial interference for public safety, the prevention of crime, and the protection of others’ rights. The complainant, potential future partners, and affected children also had Article 8 interests in living free from a risk of violence.

3. For a restraining order imposing a geographic restriction, the court must consider its purpose, whether it is necessary, and whether its scope is reasonable in relation to the risk. Orders excluding a person from an entire town are rare. They may nevertheless be appropriate where the facts and context justify them.

4. The order had the legitimate purpose of protecting the complainant, other partners, and children. It was necessary given the appellant’s assessed dangerousness, escalating violence, coercive conduct, previous violence against partners, and repeated breaches of orders.

5. A restriction limited to the complainant’s home or nearby roads would not adequately manage the risk. The risk extended to chance encounters as the complainant and children moved around Stevenage. The appellant had tracked the complainant, entered her home at night, and shown disregard for bail conditions and electronic tagging. His family’s proximity in Stevenage gave him a continuing reason to visit and increased the risk of an encounter.

6. The interference was further mitigated because much of the ten-year order would run while the appellant was in custody, and the order could be varied or discharged if circumstances changed. The restriction was therefore reasonable in relation to the risk.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Richards, [2019] EWCA Crim 2238, dismissed the appeal against the town-wide term of the restraining order.
• St Albans Crown Court: imposed an extended sentence of nine years and four months and a ten-year restraining order, including a prohibition on entering Stevenage.