Ensuring Precision and Proportionality in Criminal Behaviour Orders: Al Magloub v. R [2025] EWCA Crim 640

Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Al Magloub v. R, delivered on 1 May 2025. The appellant, Abdulrahman Al Magloub, aged 23, had been sentenced in the Crown Court at Isleworth to a total of 27 months’ imprisonment for robbery and a concurrent term of four months for fraud. In addition, a three-year Criminal Behaviour Order (“CBO”) was imposed, containing five prohibitions. Al Magloub challenged three of them—namely, (1) a ban on being in a group of two or more people in public, (2) a restriction on possession of more than one mobile phone, and (3) an exclusion from the Borough of Westminster. The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time, allowed leave to appeal, quashed only the group-association prohibition, and upheld the rest.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal’s key findings and orders were:

Extension of time for appealing was granted and leave to appeal was given.
The prohibition against associating in groups of two or more people in public (unless family) was quashed for lack of precision, disproportionate breadth, and enforcement difficulties.
The exclusion from the Borough of Westminster (three-year zone) was upheld as precise, proportionate, and necessary to curb repetitive antisocial behaviour.
The restriction to one registered mobile phone was maintained, on the basis that multiple phones are commonly linked to drug dealing and organized crime, and the condition was clear and enforceable.
Other prohibitions—no knife in public and no contact with the co-defendant—remained unchallenged.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court relied heavily on the principles established in the predecessor legislation and in R v Khan [2018] EWCA Crim 1472, [2018] 1 WLR 5419:

Precision and clarity: Terms of a CBO must be “precise and capable of being understood by the offender” (Khan, para. 14).
Reasonableness, proportionality, practicality: Prohibitions must be tailored to the individual circumstances and not mere “box-ticking” (Khan, para. 20).
Enforcement and intelligibility: The court must ensure the offender knows exactly what is forbidden and that enforcement agencies can apply the prohibition without ad hoc discretion.

These authorities guided the Court of Appeal in determining that over-broad or vague conditions taint the lawfulness of a CBO.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three stages:

Threshold for a CBO: Under sections 330–331 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court must be satisfied that the offender has engaged in behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and that the order will help prevent such behaviour. That threshold was met on undisputed facts of violent robbery and repeat offending.
Assessment of each prohibition:

Group-association ban: Struck down because it prevented the appellant from any public interaction beyond family, was unclear (e.g., Social Services meetings), and imposed enforcement burdens incompatible with section 331’s requirement for precise terms.
Westminster exclusion: Upheld as clearly defined by map boundaries, proportionate (limited duration, no impact on home, work or education), and necessary given multiple incidents in that borough.
Single mobile phone rule: Upheld on the basis of evidence linking multiple phones to drug dealing, the condition’s clarity (registered device requirement), and a three-year time limit.

Proportionality and human rights: Although Article 8 ECHR issues were raised, the court deemed it unnecessary to engage in detailed Convention balancing for the group prohibition once it was found unlawful under domestic statutory tests. The upheld restrictions did not impinge on core private life or exceed what was necessary in a democratic society.

3. Impact

This judgment reinforces key principles for future CBOs:

Judges must craft prohibitions with laser-like precision, avoiding blanket bans on ordinary social interactions.
Evidence of risk must be tailored to each condition—courts cannot rely on generic police concerns about a locale without connecting them to the offender’s history.
Conditions must be enforceable without requiring policing discretion or special accommodations by third parties.
The decision affirms the utility of CBOs as preventive tools, while cautioning against internal exile or over-reaching restrictions.
Sentencers will look to this case when imposing or resisting novel prohibitions—including digital restrictions (phones, SIM cards) and geographic exclusions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO): A court order preventing an offender from specified behaviour to stop harassment, alarm or distress. Breach is a criminal offence.
Section 330–331 Sentencing Act 2020: Defines CBOs and sets out when they may be made—namely, if the offender’s past conduct justifies prevention of future misconduct.
Precision and Proportionality: Legal standards requiring that any restriction on liberty must be narrowly tailored to the risk posed and clearly understandable by both the offender and enforcers.
Article 8 ECHR: Protects private and family life. Restrictions on social interaction invoke Article 8, requiring demonstrable necessity and proportionality in a democratic society.
Internal Exile: The practice of banning an individual from a geographical area. Permissible only if justified, precise, and proportionate.

Conclusion

Al Magloub v. R crystallises the modern approach to CBOs under the Sentencing Act 2020. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that prohibitions must be precise, proportionate, and evidence-based. Over-broad bans on ordinary social conduct will be struck down, while well-defined exclusions and targeted restrictions—such as geographic bans supported by the offender’s history, or limits on multiple unregistered devices—remain viable. This decision will guide sentencers in balancing community protection with individual rights, ensuring that CBOs remain effective yet fair preventive measures in the criminal justice system.