Jason Nicholas Juul v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police & Anor

A High Court application to discharge a Serious Crime Prevention Order requires a genuine change of circumstances affecting the order. It cannot be used as a collateral challenge to the order’s original imposition, duration, statutory compatibility or human-rights compliance. Matters known to the Crown Court when making the order, including intended residence abroad, anticipated enforcement difficulties and the passage of time, ordinarily cannot qualify as such a change. A stated intention to leave the United Kingdom is insufficient without reliable evidence of a changed situation. The order remains preventive rather than punitive, and residence abroad does not by itself make it vague, ineffective or unenforceable within the jurisdiction.

The claimant applied under section 18 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and CPR Part 8 to discharge a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order made by the Crown Court at Swansea on 17 May 2022. The order replaced an earlier order and regulated communications, electronic devices, domains, servers and notification of premises and addresses.

The claimant had been released from custody, relocated outside the United Kingdom and asserted that the order could not be monitored or enforced abroad. He also relied on the passage of time, his changed personal circumstances, alleged human-rights interference and the absence of recent serious offending. The defendants argued that these matters either were known when the order was made or did not amount to a change of circumstances affecting it. The central issue was whether the High Court could entertain the statutory application.

1. Application dismissed. The court declined to entertain the application because there had been no change of circumstances affecting the order within section 18(3) of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
2. The statutory discharge procedure was not designed to circumvent the appeal route under section 24. The High Court would therefore treat the SCPO as lawfully made and compatible with the claimant’s human-rights and common-law rights at the time of imposition. Complaints that the Crown Court should not have made the order, or should have imposed a shorter duration, were matters for the Court of Appeal.
3. The Crown Court had been aware that the claimant intended to live abroad, that practical enforcement might be difficult outside the United Kingdom, that the SCPO had existed in some form since 2012 and that the connection between the original offending and the order might weaken over time. Those matters could not constitute a later change affecting the order.
4. The passage of time alone could not qualify. The five-year duration had been expressly selected by the Crown Court, and treating the mere passage of time as sufficient would undermine both the sentencing judge’s decision and the statutory appeal scheme.
5. The claimant’s assertion that he no longer intended to return to the United Kingdom was insufficient. The court assessed his conduct and the reliability of his statements, noting uncertainty about where he had lived and his continuing family links to Wales. The order contained no prohibition on foreign travel or residence abroad. It remained sufficiently clear and enforceable in this jurisdiction, notwithstanding possible barriers to enforcement overseas.
6. The claimant’s reliance on KBR did not assist because the extra-territoriality issue did not amount to a change of circumstances. By way of observation only, the judge considered that the international nature of serious crime and section 5(2) might suggest that Parliament intended the statutory scheme to reach conduct connected with places outside England and Wales, but she reached no final conclusion on that issue.

The Human Rights Act 1998, article 8 and common-law rights did not require a different result.

• Court of Appeal: The claimant sought leave to appeal against the Swansea Crown Court SCPO. Leave was refused on the papers by McGowan J on 2 September 2022, and the claimant abandoned the appeal on 4 November 2022. No judgment of the full court was given.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present application under section 18 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not entertained and the claim was dismissed.