Olatunji & Anor, R. v

A restraining order against an individual must be justified by evidence connecting that individual to the prohibited conduct. A person's legal responsibility as a company director is not, by itself, enough to impose a personal order for another person's postings where there is no evidence that the person encouraged or permitted them. The Court of Appeal does not rehear evidence in a dangerous-dog appeal. It asks whether the trial judge was entitled to evaluate the evidence as he did and reach the relevant conclusion. Destruction and compensation orders will stand where the conclusions were open on the evidence and cannot be shown to be legally flawed or excessive.

Olayinka Olatunji pleaded guilty to being in charge of a dog that caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. Her son, Deji Olatunji, pleaded guilty to the lesser offence. The Crown Court made a destruction order for Tank, financial orders and a four-year restraining order against both defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 5. Olayinka appealed with leave, and both defendants renewed grounds concerning the other orders. The issues included the refusal of an adjournment for a further expert report, the destruction and compensation orders, and whether the restraining order could properly be imposed on Olayinka personally because she was a director of the company through which her son's postings were made.

The appeal was allowed in part. The restraining order against Olayinka Olatunji was quashed. In all other respects, the renewed grounds were dismissed.

1. Adjournment. The court refused an adjournment for a further expert report. The proceedings had already been substantially delayed. No explanation was given for failing to obtain a report earlier, and the contents and admissibility of proposed fresh evidence were speculative. Refusal was required by the good administration of justice.
2. Destruction order. The trial judge had properly assessed the expert evidence and was entitled to find that Tank was plainly dangerous and that no proposed conditions would make him safe. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is not a court of rehearing. Its task was to decide whether the judge was entitled to evaluate the evidence as he did and reach the conclusion in question. No error of law or basis for appellate interference was established.
3. Compensation. The evidence established serious physical injuries, infection, lasting physical effects, psychological impact and disruption to family life. Although £8,000 was perhaps on the high side, it was not even arguably excessive.
4. Restraining order. The order was justified against Deji Olatunji, whose postings prompted it. However, under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Olayinka's status as a company director was not, without evidence that she encouraged or permitted the postings, a sufficient reason for imposing the order against her personally.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court allowed Olayinka Olatunji's appeal to the extent of quashing the restraining order against her and dismissed the remaining renewed grounds: [2020] EWCA Crim 1029.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: Following guilty pleas, the judge made the destruction, compensation, costs and restraining orders at hearings on 13 and 17 December 2019.
• Magistrates' Court: Olayinka Olatunji pleaded guilty in February 2019. Deji Olatunji subsequently pleaded guilty in the Crown Court on 23 September 2019.