Hancox & Anor v R.

Hancox & Anor v R.

The court held that the judge was entitled to conclude that both appellants posed a real risk of future serious offending, and that the restrictions imposed were proportionate and tailored to their demonstrated roles in the counterfeiting operation.

Parties
Appellant: Dennis Hancox; Appellant: Michael Duffy; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Crime Prevention Orders, Counterfeiting, Proportionality, Future Risk Assessment
Criminal Law Preventive Orders Serious Crime Prevention Orders Counterfeiting Proportionality Future Risk Assessment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Hancox

Appellant

Michael Duffy

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Serious Crime Prevention Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the making of Serious Crime Prevention Orders was wrong in principle for each appellant
  2. 2 Whether the restrictions imposed were proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in departing from medical evidence and probation assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the judge was entitled to conclude that both appellants posed a real risk of future serious offending, and that the restrictions imposed were proportionate and tailored to their demonstrated roles in the counterfeiting operation.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Serious Crime Prevention Orders against Dennis Hancox and Michael Duffy upheld