R v Liam Daniel Bate

R v Liam Daniel Bate

The inclusion of the child in the restraining order was justified due to the appellant's conduct and the child's fear, but the 10-year duration was excessive and should be reduced to 5 years. The order's wording was amended to allow contact through a named third party or solicitors to ensure effective communication while maintaining protection.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: Liam Daniel Bate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order Provisions Following Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Appeals, Domestic Violence, Child Protection
Criminal Law Restraining Orders Appeals Domestic Violence Child 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Liam Daniel Bate

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order Provisions Following Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inclusion of the child in the restraining order was justified
  2. 2 Whether the 10-year duration of the restraining order was excessive
  3. 3 Whether the wording of the restraining order permitted effective contact with the child

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of the child in the restraining order was justified due to the appellant's conduct and the child's fear, but the 10-year duration was excessive and should be reduced to 5 years. The order's wording was amended to allow contact through a named third party or solicitors to ensure effective communication while maintaining protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Restraining order duration reduced from 10 years to 5 years
  • Wording amended to permit contact through Mrs Samantha Greenwell or solicitors instead of Children’s Services/Solicitors