REGINA v Picken

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 June 2006, following pleas of guilty on re-arraignment on 10 April 2006, the Applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for putting a person in fear of violence through harassment, and to three months' imprisonment concurrent for common assault. No separate penalty was imposed for the breach of a community order. A Restraining Order was made for five years pursuant to section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, restraining the Applicant from contacting the Complainant directly or indirectly and from going within 100 yards of her home at 26 Lupton Walk, The City.

The Complainant was the Applicant's partner, and their relationship was described as turbulent, with incidents of violence linked to the Applicant's alcohol abuse. Two main incidents occurred: on 4 February 2006, the Applicant, intoxicated and confrontational, threatened the Complainant with knives and caused her to fear for her safety; on 7 February 2006, the Applicant again appeared drunk, took the Complainant's keys, threatened her with knives, pushed and punched her, and prevented her from leaving until she escaped to contact the police. The Applicant was arrested shortly after.

The Applicant pleaded guilty, admitting to verbal threats and some physical assault but denying intent to use the knives. The breach of the community order related to damage caused to the front door of a neighboring property on 24 December 2005.

The Applicant had a significant criminal history, including multiple prior convictions for violence and harassment, and had previously been subject to a restraining order. Pre-sentence reports highlighted the Applicant's alcohol dependency, lack of acceptance of responsibility, and high risk of reoffending. Psychological assessment noted impulsivity and low tolerance.

The application for leave to appeal against both the sentence and the Restraining Order was referred to the court by the Registrar.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant was appropriate and proportionate given the facts and circumstances.
2. Whether the Restraining Order made under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was properly made without inquiry into the Complainant's views.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Liddle and Haynes [1999] 3 All ER 816, [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 131	Guidance on sentencing for breaches of restraining orders, including consideration of factors and appropriate sentence lengths for first and second offences.	The court considered the guidance but distinguished the present case due to the involvement of violence and the nature of the offences, concluding the sentence was severe but not excessive.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the facts in light of the Applicant's plea and the prosecution's opened facts, noting that the Complainant's statement was only to be disregarded if inconsistent with the plea but could be relied upon to assess the impact of the Applicant's conduct. The court acknowledged the Applicant's history of violent offences and alcohol abuse, which contributed to the offences committed during the currency of a community order.

Regarding sentencing, the court applied established guidance but found the sentence appropriate to communicate the seriousness of drunken violence despite its severity.

Concerning the Restraining Order, the court found that the trial judge erred by making the order without ascertaining the Complainant's wishes. The judge had relied on the Applicant's legal representative's statement that the Complainant was willing to resume the relationship, but there was no evidence to confirm this. The court emphasized that the Complainant's consent or desire to continue contact was crucial and that the judge should have adjourned the matter to allow the police to consult her. The court held that it was inappropriate for the judge to decide unilaterally that the Complainant needed protection against her own wishes.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Restraining Order should be set aside rather than left in place to be challenged later by the Complainant.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL the custodial sentence, affirming its appropriateness.

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL and allowed the appeal in relation to the Restraining Order, setting it aside due to procedural impropriety in making the order without proper inquiry into the Complainant's position.

This decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the sentence but removing the Restraining Order. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the necessity of investigating the victim's wishes before imposing such orders.