R v Abdulrahman Al Magloub

A Criminal Behaviour Order must be directed to preventing behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and each prohibition must be precise, understandable, reasonable, proportionate, realistic, practical and enforceable. It must be tailored to the offender’s circumstances; a blanket restriction cannot be rescued by police discretion or informal arrangements. On appeal, the court intervenes only for an error in the exercise of discretion. A clearly defined, time-limited exclusion from an area where the offender repeatedly engaged in antisocial behaviour may be proportionate. A restriction to one registered mobile phone may also be justified by evidence of escalating criminality and drug-dealing risk.

Following conviction at the Crown Court at Isleworth, the applicant was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for robbery and a concurrent four-month term for fraud. He was also made subject to a three-year Criminal Behaviour Order containing five prohibitions. After a 337-day delay, he sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against three prohibitions: a ban on being in groups in public, a restriction to one registered mobile phone, and exclusion from Westminster. The prosecution accepted that the group prohibition should be quashed but defended the other two. The central issues were whether the prohibitions satisfied the statutory test and were sufficiently clear, tailored and proportionate.

The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal. It allowed the appeal only in relation to prohibition 2, quashed that prohibition, and dismissed the other grounds. Prohibitions 1, 3, 4 and 5 therefore remained in force.

1. Statutory framework. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, a Criminal Behaviour Order is preventive in purpose and may prohibit or require specified conduct. The conditions in section 331(2) were satisfied because the applicant had engaged in behaviour causing harassment, alarm and distress, and an order with suitable prohibitions would help prevent further such behaviour. The court could consider evidence even if it would not have been admissible in criminal proceedings.
2. Applicable principles. Applying R v Khan, [2018] EWCA Crim 1472; [2018] 1 WLR 5419, the terms of an order must be precise and understandable, reasonable and proportionate, realistic and practical, and capable of enforcement. Orders must be tailored to the individual circumstances and imposed with caution. On appeal, intervention was justified only where the sentencing judge had erred in exercising the discretion; the possibility that another judge might have chosen differently was insufficient.
3. Group prohibition. The prohibition against being with two or more people in a public place, other than family members, was excessively wide. It lacked clarity and created difficulty in enforcement, including uncertainty about access to Social Services. Police discretion or private arrangements could not cure that fundamental defect. The Recorder had also given no explanation for selecting that prohibition. It was therefore not a lawful exercise of the discretion under section 331 and was quashed.
4. Westminster exclusion. The exclusion area was defined clearly by a map. Evidence of at least ten incidents of antisocial behaviour in Westminster, the character of the area, the three-year duration, the absence of any restriction on the applicant’s current lawful activities, and the ability to apply for variation justified the conclusion that the prohibition was proportionate.
5. Mobile-phone restriction. The applicant’s escalating criminality, the violent street robbery, intelligence that he had described himself as a drug dealer, and the recognised association between drug dealing and multiple phones provided a sufficient basis for restricting him to one registered phone. The prohibition was clear, enforceable and limited to three years.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Extension of time and leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed on one ground only; prohibition 2 quashed and the remaining prohibitions continued in force.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth: On 11 October 2023, the applicant was sentenced for robbery and fraud and made subject to a three-year Criminal Behaviour Order containing five prohibitions.