Smith v R.

Smith v R.

The restraining order was unlawful because it did not identify a victim, there was no proven risk of harassment within the meaning of the Act, and the necessity criterion was not satisfied. The order was not justified as a means of protecting the public from a possible recurrence of mental illness.

Parties
Appellant: Mark John Smith; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Acquittal, Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Necessity Test
Criminal Law Restraining Orders Acquittal Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Necessity Test

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark John Smith

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a restraining order under s5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can be imposed after an acquittal by reason of insanity where there is no identified victim and no proven risk of harassment
  2. 2 Whether the necessity test under s5A was satisfied in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The restraining order was unlawful because it did not identify a victim, there was no proven risk of harassment within the meaning of the Act, and the necessity criterion was not satisfied. The order was not justified as a means of protecting the public from a possible recurrence of mental illness.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • restraining order quashed