R v Daniel Plackett

When fixing compensation for criminal injury, the court must set an amount appropriate to the proven physical and psychological harm and must have regard to the offender’s means under the Sentencing Act 2020. The order must be realistically payable within a reasonable period. A sentencing judge should invite submissions on compensation, make an adequate inquiry into means, and give reasons for the amount ordered. A procedural shortcoming will not invalidate an order where the court had sufficient reliable information to assess means and payment terms. Compensation must reflect injury attributable to the offender. It is manifestly excessive if it includes more serious injury inflicted by a co-offender.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a pub manager, assault by beating an emergency worker, and obstructing a constable. The Crown Court at Lincoln imposed suspended sentences and ordered him to pay £2,000 compensation to each victim by instalments.

He appealed, with leave, against the compensation orders only. He contended that the amounts did not reflect the respective injuries, that the judge had not sought submissions or adequately investigated his means, and that insufficient reasons had been given.

The central issues were whether the compensation orders were appropriate to the injuries caused and whether the sentencing process adequately addressed the appellant’s means and the reasons for the awards.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The £2,000 order for the pub manager was upheld. The £2,000 order for the police officer was quashed and replaced with £700.

2. Under section 135 of the Sentencing Act 2020, compensation must be fixed at an amount appropriate to the evidence and representations, with regard to the offender’s means. A court should make an adequate inquiry into means, permit submissions on the proposed amount and payment period, and give reasons for its order. The compensation guidance and the Judicial College guideline could assist the assessment.

3. The £2,000 provisional figure for the pub manager was appropriate. She had sustained a broken nose and the available victim statement showed temporary mental anxiety and continuing distress. Although an updated statement would have been desirable, the evidence supported that award.

4. The police officer suffered pain and bruising from the appellant’s headbutt, but not a fractured nose. The serious facial injuries were inflicted by the co-accused and could not increase the appellant’s compensation liability. An award of £700 was appropriate; £2,000 was manifestly excessive.

5. The judge should expressly have invited submissions and undertaken a more detailed inquiry into means. Nevertheless, he had sufficient information about the appellant’s employment, income, savings and ability to make instalment payments. There was therefore no error of principle in making compensation orders. The appellant had already paid £700 to each victim, so no further sum was payable to the police officer; the remaining instalments for the pub manager continued.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 1205, allowed the appeal only insofar as it concerned the compensation order for PC Keat, which was reduced from £2,000 to £700.
• Crown Court at Lincoln — on 15 November 2023, imposed suspended sentences and ordered compensation of £2,000 to each victim.
• Lincoln Magistrates’ Court — on 20 September 2021, following guilty pleas, committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.