R v Ryan Barton

Under the Sentencing Act, section 155, a court considering a deprivation order must have regard to the property’s value and its likely financial and other effects on the offender. Where the defendant is represented, representations may properly be made through counsel. The defendant has no separate entitlement to address the court directly. The defence must have a fair opportunity to seek an adjournment and take instructions, but lengthy notice is unnecessary for a routine application concerning property used in the offending. A challenge based on the order’s effects requires evidence of the particular effect relied on. Arrangements for preserving private data are primarily administrative. No material irregularity or unfairness was shown.

Following a guilty plea to stalking, the Crown Court at Reading imposed a 24-month community order and ordered the deprivation and destruction of the appellant’s mobile phone, which had been used in the offending. The prosecution had notified the defence before the sentencing hearing. Counsel accepted the principle of deprivation but sought arrangements for downloading and preserving private material. The appellant appealed only against the deprivation order, arguing that the judge had failed to hear representations and had not properly considered the financial and other effects required by section 155 of the Sentencing Act. The central issue was whether any material irregularity or disproportionate impact had been established.

The appeal against the deprivation order was dismissed.

1. Opportunity for representations. The prosecution had notified the defence before the hearing, and no lengthy notice was required for an application concerning a mobile phone used extensively in the offending. If counsel required instructions, an adjournment could have been sought. The judge did not prevent submissions. He merely indicated that the represented appellant could not address the court directly, while counsel remained able to make representations.
2. Application of section 155. Section 155 required consideration of the property’s value and the likely financial and other effects of the order. Counsel accepted the principle of forfeiture and destruction and raised the preservation of private material. The judge agreed that contacts and relevant images could be downloaded and separated. The court held that there was no evidence of any particular effect making the usual order unfair or unjust. The reference to two-step verification was unsupported by evidence that it could not be transferred or replicated on a replacement phone.
3. Implementation and subsequent matters. Downloading and separating personal material were primarily administrative matters for counsel and the officer. If difficulties arose, counsel could return to the sentencing judge for clarification, including under the slip rule. Later suggestions of unhelpful discussions with the police were unsupported and could not be considered on appeal. The complaint was therefore misconceived and disclosed no material irregularity.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2025] EWCA Crim 1142): dismissed the appeal against the deprivation order.
• Crown Court at Reading: following the guilty plea, imposed a 24-month community order and ordered deprivation and destruction of the mobile phone.