Richards, R. v

Richards, R. v

The broad restriction prohibiting the appellant from entering Stevenage was reasonable and necessary given the risk posed to the complainant and her children, the appellant's history of violence and disregard for court orders, and the inadequacy of a narrower restriction. The order was justified and consistent with Article 8 ECHR.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Richards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Dangerousness Assessment
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Restraining Orders Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Dangerousness Assessment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Richards

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a city-wide restraining order prohibiting the appellant from entering Stevenage is contrary to Article 8 ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the restriction is unnecessary and disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The broad restriction prohibiting the appellant from entering Stevenage was reasonable and necessary given the risk posed to the complainant and her children, the appellant's history of violence and disregard for court orders, and the inadequacy of a narrower restriction. The order was justified and consistent with Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The broad restraining order prohibiting the appellant from entering Stevenage for ten years is upheld.