Bradfield, R v
The appeal was dismissed because the judge properly balanced the interests of the victim and the appellant, disregarded inadmissible hearsay, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence or detailed proposals to justify varying the restraining order.
- Parties
- Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Mark Anthony Bradfield
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary Restraining Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Orders, Variation of Orders, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Natural Justice, Appeal Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen
Respondent
Mark Anthony Bradfield
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary Restraining Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the refusal to vary a restraining order was proper
- 2 Whether the hearing was conducted in accordance with natural justice
- 3 Whether the restraining order unfairly restricted the appellant's employment and travel opportunities
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the judge properly balanced the interests of the victim and the appellant, disregarded inadmissible hearsay, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence or detailed proposals to justify varying the restraining order.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
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