R v Hedi Amri

A restraining order under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020 may be made only where it is necessary to protect a victim or another person from conduct amounting to harassment or causing fear of violence. It cannot be imposed merely to provide peace of mind. The court must assess evidence of future risk and ensure that the terms are proportionate. An isolated assault between strangers, without evidence of future harassment or violence, did not justify prohibiting contact or attendance at a bus station. The appeal was allowed and the restraining order quashed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm after joining an attack on a bus driver at Guildford Bus Station. The Crown Court at Guildford imposed a suspended sentence and a three-year restraining order prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the complainant and attendance at Guildford Bus Station.

The prosecution’s application was made late and did not specify a duration. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of future risk, the parties were strangers with no continuing relationship, and the restrictions were disproportionate. With leave, the appeal concerned whether the order was necessary under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The appeal was allowed and the restraining order was quashed. The sentence and all other orders remained in force.

1. Statutory framework. Section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020 confines the power to orders made for the protection of a victim or other specified person from conduct amounting to harassment or causing a fear of violence. Necessity is a statutory requirement. An order cannot be justified merely by a desire to provide the victim with peace of mind.
2. Relevant guidance. The court considered Khellaf [2016] EWCA Crim 1297, where the authorities were summarised as requiring attention to the protected person’s views, necessity of the order, and proportionality of its terms. Those principles applied despite the materially different facts in that case.
3. Application. This was an isolated encounter between persons previously unknown to each other who had no continuing relationship. There was no evidence of a risk of future conduct amounting to harassment or causing the complainant to fear violence. The sentencing remarks did not adequately explain why the order was necessary. Catching a bus which happened to be driven by the complainant was not, without more, conduct amounting to harassment or causing a fear of violence.
4. Disposition. The restraining order was therefore not necessary to protect the complainant and was quashed. The remaining sentence was unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 1314, 25 September 2025: appeal allowed and restraining order quashed; sentence otherwise unchanged.
• Crown Court at Guildford — 10 December 2024: guilty plea accepted and a suspended sentence, compensation order and three-year restraining order imposed.