R v Joshua Truksa

A restraining order may properly be imposed following an acquittal where the evidence establishes an obsessive mindset and a real risk of further harassment. The judge must make clear the factual basis for finding the order necessary and give reasons for its terms.

A period without further contact does not make such an order unnecessary where the underlying evidence continues to demonstrate a real risk of renewed harassment.

The appellant was acquitted at the Crown Court at Salisbury of an offence under section 1(1)(a) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Following the acquittal, the judge imposed a restraining order under section 5(a)(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The judge had considered the complainant’s statements and a recording in which the appellant repeatedly threatened to publish a covertly made podcast unless she abandoned plans to work in her home country. The appellant appealed against the order, contending that the judge had not adequately explained its necessity and that there had been no contact for about 18 months.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenge to the restraining order was unarguable and had no merit.

2. The Crown Court judge had clearly identified both the factual basis for the order and why it was necessary. The recording, together with the other evidence, showed an obsessive, controlling course of conduct and supported the conclusion that there was a real risk of further harassment.

3. The judge was entitled to find, to the criminal standard, that an order under section 5(a)(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was necessary to prevent further harassment. His reasons, including his assessment of the appellant’s threats to publish the podcast to obstruct the complainant’s intended employment, were clear and sufficient.

4. The lapse of approximately 18 months without further contact did not undermine that conclusion on the evidence. The order was correctly imposed in the terms made by the Crown Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the restraining order: [2025] EWCA Crim 833.
• Crown Court at Salisbury: following the appellant’s acquittal, imposed a restraining order pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.