Juul v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police & Anor [2024] EWHC 193 (Admin) (07 February 2024)

Juul v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police & Anor [2024] EWHC 193 (Admin) (07 February 2024)

There has been no relevant change of circumstances affecting the SCPO since its imposition. The claimant's relocation abroad and passage of time were contemplated by the Crown Court judge and do not justify discharge. The application is a collateral attack on the original order, which should have been pursued by appeal. The SCPO remains lawful, proportionate, and enforceable within the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 193 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jason Nicholas Juul; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police; Second Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Serious Crime Prevention Order (scpo) Under Section 18 Serious Crime Act 2007 and CPR Part 8 / Final Judgment on Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Crime Prevention Orders, Change of Circumstances, Jurisdiction, Enforceability of Orders Abroad, Article 8 ECHR, Collateral Attack on Orders
Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights Serious Crime Prevention Orders Change of Circumstances Jurisdiction Enforceability of Orders Abroad Article 8 ECHR +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Nicholas Juul

Claimant

Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police

First Defendant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Serious Crime Prevention Order (scpo) Under Section 18 Serious Crime Act 2007 and CPR Part 8 / Final Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a change of circumstances affecting the SCPO under section 18 of the Serious Crime Act 2007
  2. 2 Whether the SCPO should be discharged due to the claimant's relocation abroad and passage of time
  3. 3 Whether the SCPO is unenforceable or disproportionate in light of the claimant's circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no relevant change of circumstances affecting the SCPO since its imposition. The claimant's relocation abroad and passage of time were contemplated by the Crown Court judge and do not justify discharge. The application is a collateral attack on the original order, which should have been pursued by appeal. The SCPO remains lawful, proportionate, and enforceable within the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to discharge the Serious Crime Prevention Order is refused
  • No change of circumstances affecting the order found