R v Liam Daniel Bate

A restraining order following conviction must be necessary and proportionate to the harm to be prevented. Where a child has witnessed abusive conduct and is scared of the offender, inclusion of the child may be necessary for protection. The duration must nevertheless be no longer than justified by the circumstances.

Terms regulating parent-child contact should preserve an effective and available indirect route for arranging contact where it may otherwise be appropriate. An order should protect the complainant and child from direct contact without making lawful contact arrangements impracticable.

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences arising from his stalking and abusive conduct towards his former partner, with whom he had a child. He was committed from Teesside Magistrates’ Court for sentence and, on 4 October 2023, the Crown Court at Teesside imposed 112 weeks’ imprisonment and a ten-year restraining order.

The order protected both the complainant and their child. It limited contact to arrangements through Children’s Services or solicitors. The appellant appealed the child’s inclusion, the ten-year duration, and the practicality of the contact provisions.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Court upheld the inclusion of the child in the restraining order. The child had been present during the appellant’s battery of the complainant and was then scared of him. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that protection of the child made this necessary.

2. The Court applied the principles in R v Khellaf [2016] EWCA Crim 1297. A restraining order must be necessary, and its terms must be proportionate to the harm to be prevented. Particular care is required where a child is involved so that appropriate parent-child contact is not made impossible.

3. The ten-year period was manifestly excessive. Although the appellant’s recent conduct justified protection, he had previously been a proper father and the offending conduct occurred over a limited period. A five-year order was sufficient and proportionate.

4. The contact provisions did not provide an effective means of arranging contact. Neither Children’s Services nor a solicitor was available to the appellant. Following the difficulty identified in R v Awan [2019] EWCA Crim 1456, the Court substituted Mrs Samantha Greenwell or solicitors as the permitted intermediaries. This preserved protection from direct contact while allowing contact arrangements to be re-established if the child wished.

5. The order was varied accordingly. The Court noted that the Crown Court could revisit the arrangements if the amendments caused difficulty.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal in part and varied the restraining order: [2024] EWCA Crim 137.
• Crown Court at Teesside: On 4 October 2023, sentenced the appellant to 112 weeks’ imprisonment and imposed a ten-year restraining order.
• Teesside Magistrates’ Court: Following guilty pleas, committed the appellant for sentence to the Crown Court.