R v ANZ

A compensation order may be made only after the court has had regard to the offender’s means, so far as they appear or are known. That mandatory requirement calls for basic information such as employment, income, financial position and major expenditure. A vague assumption about future employment is insufficient. The order must also be realistic and based on a straightforward assessment of loss. Compensation orders are not a substitute for sentence, a means of avoiding custody, or an appropriate vehicle for detailed assessment of complex injury and loss. In a case involving prolonged sexual abuse and neglect, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme may provide the more suitable route. The court should also consider whether an order would reduce a victim’s state compensation or prolong the offender’s adverse impact on the victim.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Shrewsbury of three offences of sexual activity with a child family member and one offence of cruelty to a person under 16. The offences concerned his daughter and took place between 2004 and 2007. On 30 April 2024, the Crown Court imposed concurrent suspended terms of 18 months’ imprisonment, together with other requirements, and ordered the appellant to pay £10,000 compensation at £400 per month.

No compensation order had been sought by the prosecution. The sentencing judge made no proper enquiry into the appellant’s means and relied on a supposition that he could obtain delivery-driving work. The appeal concerned whether the order was unlawful and manifestly excessive, and whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

1. Appeal allowed. The Compensation Order was quashed and the matter was not remitted to the Crown Court.
2. Sections 133 to 135 of the Sentencing Act 2020 govern compensation orders. Section 135(3)(b) makes consideration of the offender’s means mandatory. Section 135(2) also requires the court to consider evidence and representations when deciding the appropriate amount.
3. The court need not conduct a detailed financial examination in every case. Basic information about employment, financial position, income and major expenditure, such as rent, will ordinarily suffice. Here there was no such information. A vague supposition that the appellant could obtain work did not amount to regard being had to his means. The failure also deprived him of a proper opportunity to make representations.
4. The principles in R v York [2018] EWCA Crim 2754 have wide application. The offender must provide means, the judge must enquire and make clear findings, the order must be realistic, and the court must consider instalments and the repayment period. The court should also consider exceptional factors relevant to compensation.
5. Compensation orders are intended for clear and straightforward cases where the amount of compensation can readily be ascertained. They are not an alternative to the proper criminal sentence and must not allow an offender to buy himself out of custody. The prolonged sexual abuse, neglect and cruelty here made a straightforward assessment of loss difficult. A compensation order could also reduce any award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and prolong the offender’s adverse impact on the victim.
6. The errors of principle made the order unlawful. Given the nature and complexity of the case, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was the more suitable forum for assessing compensation, and no fresh compensation order should be imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Compensation Order made by the Crown Court was quashed and the matter was not remitted.
• Wolverhampton Crown Court: On 30 April 2024, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent suspended terms of 18 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay £10,000 compensation at £400 per month.