REGINA v STEPHEN WRIGHT-HADLEY

REGINA v STEPHEN WRIGHT-HADLEY

The deprivation order was quashed because there was insufficient evidence that the unexamined hard drives and SD cards had been used or were intended to be used for committing offences, and the judge failed to consider the statutory requirements of section 155, including proportionality and the effects on the appellant.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Stephen Wright-Hadley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Deprivation Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; deprivation order quashed
Legal Topics
Deprivation Order, Voyeurism, Affray, Sentencing, Forfeiture of Property
Criminal Law Deprivation Order Voyeurism Affray Sentencing Forfeiture of Property

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Stephen Wright-Hadley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Deprivation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deprivation order in respect of unexamined hard drives and SD cards met the statutory test under section 153(3) of the Sentencing Code
  2. 2 Whether the judge considered the requirements of section 155 of the Sentencing Code, including proportionality and the effects on the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The deprivation order was quashed because there was insufficient evidence that the unexamined hard drives and SD cards had been used or were intended to be used for committing offences, and the judge failed to consider the statutory requirements of section 155, including proportionality and the effects on the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; deprivation order quashed

Orders

  • The deprivation order in respect of the unexamined hard drives and SD cards is quashed.