R v Gino Mari
The restraining order prohibiting contact with the children was not supported by evidence, was unnecessary, lacked procedural safeguards, and was draconian after acquittal; therefore, the prohibition on contact with the children must be removed.
- Parties
- Appellant: Gino Mari; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, restraining order varied
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Orders, Domestic Violence, Child Contact, Acquittal, Procedural Safeguards
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gino Mari
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the restraining order prohibiting contact with the children was necessary and proportionate
- 2 Whether procedural safeguards under Criminal Procedure Rules were followed
- 3 Whether the restraining order was internally inconsistent
Ratio Decidendi
The restraining order prohibiting contact with the children was not supported by evidence, was unnecessary, lacked procedural safeguards, and was draconian after acquittal; therefore, the prohibition on contact with the children must be removed.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, restraining order varied
Orders
- Prohibition on contact with the children removed from restraining order.
- Defendant restrained from contacting complainant by telephone, letter, card, internet, social media or any other form, directly or indirectly, or causing or inciting another to do so, save that he may through his sister, Social Services or his solicitors seek to agree contact in respect of the children.
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