R v Abdulrahman Al Magloub

R v Abdulrahman Al Magloub

The prohibition preventing the appellant from being in a group of two or more people in a public place (unless with family) was not precise, clear, or justified by the evidence, and thus was not a lawful exercise of the power to impose a Criminal Behaviour Order. The prohibitions on entering the Borough of Westminster and on possessing more than one mobile phone were proportionate, clear, and justified by the appellant's history and risk of further offending.

Parties
Appellant: Abdulrahman Al Magloub; Respondent: R (Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Criminal Behaviour Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; prohibition 2 quashed; other prohibitions upheld.
Legal Topics
Criminal Behaviour Order, Robbery, Fraud, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Behaviour Order Robbery Fraud Sentencing Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulrahman Al Magloub

Appellant

R (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Criminal Behaviour Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibitions imposed by the Criminal Behaviour Order were lawful, proportionate, and tailored to the appellant's circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in imposing specific prohibitions challenged on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition preventing the appellant from being in a group of two or more people in a public place (unless with family) was not precise, clear, or justified by the evidence, and thus was not a lawful exercise of the power to impose a Criminal Behaviour Order. The prohibitions on entering the Borough of Westminster and on possessing more than one mobile phone were proportionate, clear, and justified by the appellant's history and risk of further offending.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; prohibition 2 quashed; other prohibitions upheld.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal granted.
  • Leave to appeal granted.