R v Mandip Singh Bhangal

A restraining order may be made only where it is necessary to protect a victim. Its terms, including duration, must be proportionate to the harm the order seeks to prevent. In assessing duration, the court should consider the nature and persistence of the offending, its impact, the time elapsed, any further incidents, the offender’s assessed risk and responsibility, and any continuing need to protect children. An excessive period should be quashed and replaced with a proportionate term. The order may later be varied if evidence shows that variation is necessary.

The Appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Warwick to racially aggravated harassment, contrary to section 32(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He received 30 months’ imprisonment and a 20-year restraining order protecting his neighbours and their children. Leave to appeal was refused in relation to the custodial sentence but granted concerning the duration of the restraining order. The appeal concerned whether the 20-year period was necessary and proportionate, particularly in light of the time elapsed, the absence of further incidents, the assessed risk and the children’s continuing need for protection.

Appeal allowed in relation to the restraining order. Leave to appeal against the custodial sentence was refused and was not renewed. The issue before the court was therefore the duration of the restraining order.

1. Under sections 359 and 360 of the Sentencing Act, a restraining order may operate for a specified period or until further order. The order can be made only where it is necessary to protect the victim. Its terms, including its duration, must be proportionate to the harm sought to be prevented.
2. The sentencing judge had not explained why a 20-year period was required. In assessing proportionality, the court took account of the absence of further offending from April 2021 until sentence, while recognising that the Appellant had spent a considerable part of that period in the United States. It also considered his limited responsibility-taking, the low risk of general offending, the medium risk of serious harm through verbal abuse and racial harassment, and the protective effect expected from the custodial sentence.
3. The 20-year term was excessive. It was quashed and replaced by a 10-year term, which reflected the continuing need to protect the victims and their children as they grew up. Under section 361 of the Sentencing Act, the prosecution or the protected persons could apply for variation if later evidence established that variation was necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 855, quashed the 20-year duration of the restraining order and substituted a 10-year term.
• Crown Court at Warwick: Following the guilty plea on 7 September 2023, HHJ Lockhart KC imposed 30 months’ imprisonment and a 20-year restraining order in case T20230022.