Baldwin, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 703 (14 May 2021)
The restraining order was wrongly imposed because the judge failed to identify the evidential basis for the order, did not clarify which evidence was relied upon, and did not resolve contested factual issues through oral evidence, thereby breaching procedural fairness and the requirements of the Criminal Procedure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] EWCA Crim 703
- Parties
- Appellant: Christopher John Baldwin; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Post Acquittal Restraining Order
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Orders on Acquittal, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Criminal Procedure, Standard of Proof, Natural Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher John Baldwin
Appellant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Post Acquittal Restraining Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge was correct to impose a restraining order on acquittal under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- 2 Whether the evidential basis for the order was properly identified and tested
- 3 Whether procedural fairness and the Criminal Procedure Rules were complied with
Ratio Decidendi
The restraining order was wrongly imposed because the judge failed to identify the evidential basis for the order, did not clarify which evidence was relied upon, and did not resolve contested factual issues through oral evidence, thereby breaching procedural fairness and the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- restraining order set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment