Hall & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 2046 (07 October 2014)

Hall & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 2046 (07 October 2014)

The sentencing judge correctly applied the statutory test for SCPOs, and the orders were justified in principle given the applicants' history and risk; however, the drafting of the orders was overly broad and required redrafting to avoid unintended consequences while preserving their preventive purpose.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 2046
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Robert Hall; Applicant: Emmet Wynne; Applicant: Ian David Knight
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence and SCPOs granted; extension of time granted; representation orders granted; SCPOs to be redrafted with opportunity for written submissions.
Legal Topics
Serious Crime Prevention Orders, Sentencing, Proceeds of Crime, Firearms Offences, Armed Robbery
Criminal Law Serious Crime Prevention Orders Sentencing Proceeds of Crime Firearms Offences Armed Robbery

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Robert Hall

Applicant

Emmet Wynne

Applicant

Ian David Knight

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Serious Crime Prevention Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition and terms of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders (SCPOs) were necessary, proportionate, and lawful given the applicants' sentences, ages, risk, and licence conditions; Whether the drafting of the SCPOs was sufficiently clear and workable

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge correctly applied the statutory test for SCPOs, and the orders were justified in principle given the applicants' history and risk; however, the drafting of the orders was overly broad and required redrafting to avoid unintended consequences while preserving their preventive purpose.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence and SCPOs granted; extension of time granted; representation orders granted; SCPOs to be redrafted with opportunity for written submissions.

Orders

  • Applicants to redraft the SCPOs within 14 days to address drafting issues while preserving their preventive intent.
  • Crown to respond within 28 days; applicants to reply within 14 days thereafter.