R v Curtis Pearson

R v Curtis Pearson

The prohibition against entering Morpeth is necessary to protect the victim but must be geographically defined by the parish boundary and limited to 5 years to ensure proportionality.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Curtis Pearson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restraining Order
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Sentencing, Proportionality, Victim Protection
Criminal Law Restraining Orders Sentencing Proportionality Victim Protection

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Curtis Pearson

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restraining Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibition against entering Morpeth in the restraining order was necessary and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the duration of the prohibition was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition against entering Morpeth is necessary to protect the victim but must be geographically defined by the parish boundary and limited to 5 years to ensure proportionality.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph (b) of the restraining order is redefined to refer to the parish boundary of Morpeth as defined by Northumberland County Council.
  • The duration of the prohibition against entering Morpeth is reduced from 10 years to 5 years.