R v Muselin Omatayo Kasumu

Under the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997, section 5A, a restraining order may be made where the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is necessary to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. The court may rely on witness statements, exhibits and police evidence already before it. In the circumstances, a jury’s determination of the alleged breach was unnecessary where the prosecution offered no evidence and the defendant accepted the order. The order’s terms and duration must be just and proportionate. Leave to appeal will be refused where the challenge discloses no arguable error of law.

The applicant had been brought before the Crown Court for alleged breaches of a family non-molestation order. The prosecution offered no evidence in exchange for the applicant accepting a five-year restraining order under section 5A of the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997, and the Crown Court directed a not guilty verdict on the alleged breach.

The applicant later sought variation of the order, but the Crown Court declined to vary it. He then applied for leave to appeal 56 days out of time, challenging the evidential basis, duration and imposition of the restraining order. The central issues were whether there was any arguable error of law and whether time should be extended.

The Court of Appeal refused both an extension of time and leave to appeal.

1. Under section 5A of the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997, the relevant condition for making a restraining order was satisfied if the court was persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the order was necessary to protect the relevant person or persons from harassment by the defendant.
2. The Crown Court had substantial material before it, including witness statements from local-authority employees, attached exhibits and police witness statements. The judge had considered that evidence and was entitled to conclude that the statutory threshold was met. The applicant’s assertions that he had not known of the earlier non-molestation order did not undermine that conclusion.
3. The absence of a jury determination on the alleged breach did not invalidate the restraining order. The breach was not put before a jury because the prosecution offered no evidence in exchange for the applicant accepting the order and giving assurances that he would comply with it.
4. The terms of the restraining order, including its five-year duration, had been clearly explained. The Crown Court had assessed them as just and proportionate, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable error in that assessment.
5. The application was 56 days late and no reason for the delay had been advanced. The Court therefore agreed with the single judge’s refusal to extend time and refused leave to appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal: [2023] EWCA Crim 600.
2. Single judge: refused an extension of time and refused leave to appeal.
3. Crown Court: directed a not guilty verdict on the alleged breach and imposed a five-year restraining order under section 5A of the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997.