R v Raja Samil Khan

Before making a compensation order, a sentencing court must indicate its intention, invite submissions, obtain information about the offender’s means and make clear findings. It must take those means into account and set an amount and payment terms that the offender can realistically meet within a reasonable time. The order cannot assume payment by another person.

A compensation order is not a substitute for a civil damages assessment. The Crown Court should not add sums equivalent to aggravated damages or interest for delay. Failure to follow the proper procedure may require the order to be quashed, with no replacement where the evidence does not establish an appropriate ability to pay.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Birmingham to possessing an offensive weapon and inflicting grievous bodily harm. He received a total sentence of ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, together with unpaid work. The Recorder also ordered compensation of £10,600 and prosecution costs of £700, payable by instalments.

The applicant appealed against the compensation and costs orders. He argued that the Recorder had not indicated an intention to make a compensation order, invited submissions, conducted a proper means enquiry or made findings about his ability to pay. He also challenged additions for aggravating features and delay. The central issues were the lawful procedure for making a compensation order and the permissible basis for calculating it.

The court granted leave and allowed the appeal against the compensation and costs orders.

1. The court endorsed the procedure advanced by the applicant by reference to R v York [2018] EWCA Crim 2754 and sections 133 to 135 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Before making a compensation order, the court should indicate its intention, invite representations, obtain appropriate information about the offender’s means, make clear findings, take those means into account and set an amount realistically payable by the offender within a reasonable time.
2. The Recorder had only limited information about means. He should not have proceeded without giving notice of his intention to impose compensation, seeking submissions and obtaining appropriate evidence. The omission was particularly serious because the prosecution had indicated that no ancillary order was required.
3. The Crown Court is not an appropriate venue for a process akin to assessing civil damages. The Recorder therefore erred in adding sums equivalent to aggravated damages for aggravating features and interest for delay.
4. The compensation order was quashed in its entirety. The costs order was also quashed. The court was not satisfied that the applicant’s means justified making an alternative order, and no alternative order was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on 29 October 2025, granted leave and quashed the compensation and costs orders: [2025] EWCA Crim 1477.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — imposed a suspended sentence, a £10,600 compensation order and £700 prosecution costs.