R v Steven Gordon

A restriction order following a hospital order may be imposed where the statutory factors show that it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. The sentencing court makes that assessment. Medical evidence must be considered but does not bind the court, and the seriousness of the offence is relevant but not decisive by itself. On appeal, the order will stand unless the judge’s conclusion was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable. In assessing future risk, the court may distinguish compliant conduct in hospital from the uncertain stresses of independent community living.

The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding and threatening with a bladed article. The more serious wounding-with-intent charge was not proceeded with. The Crown Court at Leicester imposed concurrent hospital orders and a restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983. Three psychiatrists supported hospital treatment but considered a restriction order unnecessary. The appeal, brought with leave, challenged only the restriction order. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to find a continuing risk of serious harm despite the medical evidence and the appellant’s good conduct in hospital.

The appeal was dismissed. The hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was accepted as the appropriate disposal. The issue was whether the additional restriction order under section 41 should stand.

1. Section 41 requires the court to have regard to the nature of the offence, the offender’s antecedents and the risk of further offences if set at large. The order must appear necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. The statutory oral-evidence requirement was satisfied.
2. The sentencing court is responsible for determining whether the statutory test is met. It must consider medical evidence but is not bound by the opinions of medical witnesses. The seriousness of the offence is one factor and does not by itself require a restriction order. The court applied the principle stated in R v Birch (1990) 90 Cr.App.R 78.
3. The judge applied the correct test. He considered the seriousness of the offending, the absence of previous convictions and the risk of further offending if the appellant were set at large. Although fuller reasons for the risk finding would have been preferable, the conclusion was reasonably open to him and was neither irrational nor Wednesbury unreasonable. The appellate approach in R v Royse (1981) 3 Cr.App.R (S) 58 was applied.
4. Compliance with treatment in a low-secure hospital did not establish that the appellant presented no future risk in the community. His future response to the stress of independent living was uncertain. His serious violence followed feelings of humiliation and anger, and the judge was entitled to conclude that comparable circumstances could create a risk of serious harm. The restriction order was therefore not wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1194, the court dismissed the appeal against the restriction order.
2. Crown Court at Leicester: On 28 June 2024, the court imposed concurrent hospital orders and a restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983 after the appellant’s guilty pleas.