R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya

R v Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya

The restraining order was lawfully imposed as the evidence established a risk of future harassment, making it necessary for the protection of the complainant, her sister, and brother-in-law. The judge made no error of principle in imposing the order without oral evidence from the appellant, and the five-year duration was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Appellant: Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Harassment, Stalking, Protection From Harassment, Fair Trial, Equality of Arms
Criminal Law Family Law Restraining Orders Harassment Stalking Protection From Harassment Fair Trial Equality of Arms

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babajide Oriyomi Oshosanya

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraining order imposed following acquittal was lawful and necessary under s.5A Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether there was a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the complainant's sister or brother-in-law
  3. 3 Whether the complainant or her relatives feared that an event would definitely occur

Ratio Decidendi

The restraining order was lawfully imposed as the evidence established a risk of future harassment, making it necessary for the protection of the complainant, her sister, and brother-in-law. The judge made no error of principle in imposing the order without oral evidence from the appellant, and the five-year duration was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • restraining order for five years prohibiting contact with complainant, her sister, and brother-in-law, except via solicitors or social services for child contact; prohibition from going to locations where complainant is believed to be; prohibition from contacting complainant's sister or her husband; prohibition from...