R v Abdur Sidat

A Serious Crime Prevention Order is a preventative measure, not an additional sentence. It may be made only where the statutory threshold is met: the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the order will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement in serious crime. The assessment concerns future risk, requiring a real or significant risk rather than a bare possibility. Restrictions must serve that statutory purpose and be proportionate, but proportionality is a broader judgment rather than a precise exercise of matching each restriction to past conduct. A forward-looking order need not be confined to the defendant’s previous methods, since an order drawn too narrowly may be evaded by changing those methods. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reviews rather than substitutes its own assessment.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to serious drug and firearms offences. On 16 December 2022, during confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court at Leicester, the judge made a confiscation order and imposed a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

With permission, the appellant challenged the order’s duration and the breadth of its restrictions. He argued that the measures were not sufficiently tailored to the specific conduct in which he had previously engaged. The central issues were the statutory threshold for making the order, the proportionality of its terms, and the proper approach to appellate review.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court judge had been entitled to impose a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order.
2. Under section 19(2) of the Serious Crime Act 2007, an order may be made only where the court has reasonable grounds to believe that it will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the defendant’s involvement in serious crime. The assessment is directed to future risk. There must be a real or significant risk of further serious offending, rather than a bare possibility.
3. The court followed the authoritative framework in R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102; [2010] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 74. A Serious Crime Prevention Order is preventative, not punitive or an additional sentence. The proceedings are civil, and the question whether reasonable grounds exist is one of judgment and assessment of future risk. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction is supervisory: it does not substitute its own view and may quash or vary the order only where it is wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.
4. The terms of an order must be appropriate to the statutory public-protection purpose and proportionate. The interference with freedom of action must be justified by the public benefit and commensurate with the risk. Proportionality involves a broader exercise of judgment, not a precise scientific or arithmetical calculation. The court noted that the guidance had referred to EB(Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41; [2009] 1 AC 1159 in explaining the significance of Article 8.
5. Because the order is forward-looking, its terms need not be confined to preventing conduct identical to the defendant’s past conduct. Measures may address future risks even where they are not precisely tailored to previous methods. An order drawn too narrowly could be evaded by changing those methods.
6. The statutory maximum duration was five years. The appellant’s relevant previous conviction and involvement in the firearms offence were distinguishing features which amply justified the five-year duration in this case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the Serious Crime Prevention Order was dismissed. [2023] EWCA Crim 1411
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 16 December 2022, the court imposed a confiscation order and a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order during confiscation proceedings.