Herrington, R v

Herrington, R v

The restraining order should not have been imposed because Holly Jones, an adult with capacity, did not wish for it and was not acting under duress or fear. The criminal court lacks jurisdiction to prevent her from making such decisions, and protective measures for the child or probation staff should be pursued in the appropriate forums.

Parties
Appellant: Wayne Herrington; Respondent: Regina; Victim: Holly Jones; Witness: Mr Cullen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Domestic Violence, Appeals
Criminal Law Restraining Orders Domestic Violence 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Herrington

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Holly Jones

Victim

Mr Cullen

Witness

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraining order against Holly Jones should have been imposed despite her wishes.
  2. 2 Whether the criminal court has jurisdiction to prevent an adult from deciding who to live with.
  3. 3 Whether the restraining order was appropriate given the risks to the child and probation staff.

Ratio Decidendi

The restraining order should not have been imposed because Holly Jones, an adult with capacity, did not wish for it and was not acting under duress or fear. The criminal court lacks jurisdiction to prevent her from making such decisions, and protective measures for the child or probation staff should be pursued in the appropriate forums.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • restraining order quashed
  • all other orders, including prison sentence, remain in place