R -v- M Bradley [2024] EWCA Crim 1502
Sentencing Children and Young People Guidelines
CPS Guidelines on Restraining Orders
This update follows on from our previous update on R v M Bradley [2024] EWCA Crim 1502. In addition to the important points regarding considering the guidelines on Sentencing Children and Young People and the Totality Guidelines, the case also addresses the importance of ensuring that restraining orders imposed on young people are appropriately framed, tightly tailored and time appropriate.
Details
As part of MB’s sentence on 2 April 2024 for offences of robbery, committed when MB was 16 in 2020, the judge imposed a restraining order. The restraining order restricted MB from contacting OH, the individual with complex neurodevelopmental issues whose flat MB and other individuals had robbed. The restraining order was imposed for five years and stated that MB could not contact OH or go “within 100 meters of the victim, [OH], or any place, address where he is reasonably expected to be”.
MB appealed the restraining order specifically, stating that it was manifestly excessive in length and the condition regarding contact with OH was unworkable.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the restraining order and found that the condition stating “or any place, address, where [OH] is reasonably expected to be" was unworkable and unnecessary. There are obvious difficulties in proving where someone would reasonably be expected to be and therefore the condition of the restraining order becomes uncertain. As a result, the Court of Appeal limited the restraining order to MB not having contact with OH or going within 100 meters of him.
Regarding the 5-year time period for the restraining order, the Court of Appeal concluded that this was reasonable and the judge was entitled to consider MB’s criminal history and continuing criminal activities when imposing the restraining order for 5 years.
Commentary
The Court of Appeal’s intervention in Bradley is a useful reminder that appellate scrutiny extends to ancillary orders such as restraining orders, and that the protective aim of such orders does not justify restrictions that are broader or longer than necessary.
Restraining orders are rarely imposed on children and young people and imposing restraining orders requires careful judicial consideration of necessity, proportionality and practicality. Restraining orders are protective for victims, not punitive for the offender. The order should respond to behaviours that have caused, or credibly threaten to cause, harassment or fear of violence to the victim and must do so with the minimum restriction required, avoiding unduly vague terms.
Imposing a restraining order on a child must involve careful consideration of the risk to the victim and the order must not unduly impede education, care arrangements or rehabilitation.