Humphries, R. v

The second limb of the restraining order relating to LB was not drafted in clear, precise, or practical terms, creating uncertainty as to what is intended by the town centre restrictions. It is essential that a defendant knows precisely what is prohibited. Therefore, the geographic restrictions are deleted, and the order is amended to prohibit only contact with LB or her immediate family for five years.

Parties: Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Steven Humphries
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 02 December 2005
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Part of Sentence (restraining Order)
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics: Restraining Orders, Sentencing, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Appeals

Criminal Law Restraining Orders Sentencing Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Appeals

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Steven Humphries

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Part of Sentence (restraining Order)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the restraining order prohibiting the appellant from entering within one mile of Feltham town centre and within two miles of Hanworth town centre was clear, precise, practical, and lawful
2 Whether the restraining order was manifestly excessive and would render the appellant homeless

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

Second limb of restraining order relating to LB (geographic restrictions) deleted
First limb amended to prohibit contact with LB or her immediate family in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly, for five years