Introduction

The case of Oshosanya, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1794 involves the appellant, Mr. Oshosanya, who faced a restraining order following his acquittal on charges of stalking under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on September 13, 2022. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the judicial reasoning, and its implications on future legal proceedings concerning harassment and restraining orders.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Oshosanya was acquitted in the Crown Court at St Albans of one count of stalking involving fear of violence, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Despite the acquittal, the trial judge imposed a five-year restraining order under section 5A of the same Act to protect the complainant, her sister, and her brother-in-law from potential future harassment by Mr. Oshosanya. Mr. Oshosanya appealed the decision, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of harassment and procedural irregularities. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the restraining order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

• Caurti v DPP [2001] EWHC (Admin) 867: This case established that a restraining order under the Protection from Harassment Act requires a course of conduct amounting to harassment on at least two occasions.
• R v Qosja, Robert [2016] EWCA Crim 1543: This precedent clarified that stalking under section 4A(1)(b)(i) necessitates proof of conduct causing fear of violence to occur in the future, not just a potential for such fears.
• R v K [2011] EWCA Crim 1843 and R v Trott, Peter [2011] EWCA Crim 2395: These cases emphasized the importance of allowing the defendant an opportunity to present evidence before imposing a restraining order to ensure a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal scrutinized these precedents to determine the applicability and scope of the restraining order imposed under section 5A.

Legal Reasoning

The primary legal question addressed was whether the court had the authority under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to impose a restraining order despite the acquittal on the substantive charge of harassment. Section 5A does not require proof of the offense under section 4A; instead, it mandates that the court must consider it necessary to protect an individual from harassment by the defendant.

The Court of Appeal concluded that:

• The judge correctly assessed the risk of future harassment based on the evidence presented by the complainant, her sister, and brother-in-law.
• The requirement under section 5A does not mirror the stringent proof needed for the substantive offense of harassment but relies on whether there is a necessity for protection.
• The appellant had ample opportunity to present evidence or contest the need for a restraining order but chose not to, which did not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

Moreover, the Appeal Court found no error in the judge's decision to impose the restraining order without oral evidence from Mr. Oshosanya, as the existing evidence sufficiently demonstrated the need for protection.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the discretionary power of courts to impose restraining orders under section 5A independently of the outcomes of substantive harassment charges. It underscores the principle that the protection of individuals from potential future harassment can be paramount, even if the specific statutory elements of harassment are not met to the satisfaction of a jury.

Future cases involving restraining orders will likely reference this judgment to justify the imposition of protective measures based on the overall risk posed by the defendant, irrespective of the precise legal definitions of harassment or stalking.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Defines the offense of harassment, requiring a course of conduct causing alarm or distress on at least two occasions.

Section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Allows courts to impose restraining orders to protect individuals from harassment by a defendant, without needing to prove the defendant committed harassment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Restraining Order: A court order preventing an individual from contacting or approaching the protected person or their close associates for a specified period.

Course of Conduct: A pattern of behavior by the defendant that demonstrates intent to harass or intimidate the complainant.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Oshosanya, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1794 solidifies the authority of courts to issue comprehensive restraining orders under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, independent of the outcomes on substantive charges. This judgment emphasizes the court's role in proactively safeguarding individuals from potential future harassment, even in cases where the prosecution may not succeed in proving specific offenses beyond doubt. Legal practitioners and individuals seeking protection can look to this case as a precedent for the broad scope and effectiveness of restraining orders in addressing and mitigating risks of harassment.