NJ [2019] EWCA Crim 997

The appellant was acquitted of 11 counts of rape and other sexual offences but was made subject to an indefinite restraining order pursuant to s5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  Leave to appeal was granted limited to the making of the order in respect of two of its subjects and the indefinite length of the order.

The complainant was the child of the appellant’s partner, SJ, and when arrested he became aggressive and abusive, refusing to be interviewed. The appellant and SJ had four children together and he had two older children of his own. He subsequently breached police bail not to attend the family home and maintained an aggressive attitude to SJ. During evidence he accepted he reacted badly to authority and made clear his animosity to SJ, making allegations of a sort of child abuse against her.

The Recorder who presided over the trial was sure in his conclusion that the appellant was unstable, confrontational and controlling and was quite sure the order was necessary to protect the individuals named.

It was conceded that the appellant’s behaviour entitled the judge to make an order. It was argued that the order should not have extended to his two older children (aged 17 and 15), who were not biological children of SJ, and that the order should not have been made without limit of time.

Held: there is a continuing need for the protection provided by a restraining order but for a fixed period of 6 years and it was agreed that it was necessary for all the children to be protected. There was concern that the involvement of social services would cease once a child reached the age of 18. The appellant had the protection of seeking supervised access with any child with the approval of social services. When a child reached the age of 18 the appellant should be able to apply for a variation of the order and the parties were invited to consider what variation may be required and whether it was possible to submit an agreed variation to the Court.