R v Neil Webb Johnson
There was no sufficient evidential foundation before the judge to establish the necessity for a restraining order post-acquittal, as required by law. The judge erred in making the order without evidence of a significant future risk of harassment, particularly given the long passage of time since the last alleged conduct and absence of recent complaints or statements supporting necessity.
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Neil Webb-Johnson
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 December 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; restraining order quashed
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Orders, Acquittal, Protection From Harassment, Necessity Test, Appeals
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Neil Webb-Johnson
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restraining Order After Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidential basis for necessity of a restraining order post-acquittal was established
- 2 Whether the judge erred in law by making a restraining order without sufficient evidence of future risk
Ratio Decidendi
There was no sufficient evidential foundation before the judge to establish the necessity for a restraining order post-acquittal, as required by law. The judge erred in making the order without evidence of a significant future risk of harassment, particularly given the long passage of time since the last alleged conduct and absence of recent complaints or statements supporting necessity.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; restraining order quashed
Orders
- The restraining order made against Neil Webb-Johnson is quashed.
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