Hancox & Anor v R

Factual and Procedural Background

Two applicants, part of a group of eight men who pleaded guilty to conspiracies to produce large quantities of counterfeit banknotes (both sterling and euro), challenged the imposition of Serious Crime Prevention Orders ("SCPOs") made by the Crown Court under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The defendants contended that the making of such orders in their cases was wrong in principle. The counterfeiting operation was conducted on a commercial scale, initially in Scotland and later in London, involving sophisticated equipment and processes to produce counterfeit currency with a face value of just under £2 million. One defendant was elderly with significant health issues, while the other was younger with no previous convictions and a coordinating role in the conspiracy. Both were sentenced following guilty pleas, and SCPOs were imposed with various restrictions tailored to their involvement in the offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court was correct in principle to make Serious Crime Prevention Orders against the defendants following their convictions for serious offences involving counterfeiting.
2. Whether the specific restrictions imposed by the SCPOs were proportionate and justified by the risk of future serious criminal conduct by the defendants.
3. Whether the defendants’ individual circumstances, including age, health, and risk of reoffending, warranted the imposition or variation of SCPOs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Defendant One)

• The making of any SCPO was wrong in principle due to the defendant’s advanced age and ill health, which allegedly eliminated any real risk of future serious offences.
• The trial judge improperly departed from an assurance given at the time of sentencing regarding acceptance of medical evidence without further investigation.
• The judge wrongly disregarded the probation officer’s assessment of a low risk of reconviction.
• The prohibition on possession of a scanner was disproportionate as it impeded the defendant’s ability to scan medical appointment letters, given his arthritis.

Appellant's Arguments (Defendant Two)

• The probation officer’s low risk assessment should bind the court’s decision on the SCPO.
• The approaching pensionable age of the defendant was a significant factor against imposing a five-year SCPO.
• The notification requirements relating to mobile telephones and internet service providers were potentially intrusive and disproportionate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory framework for SCPOs under the Serious Crime Act 2007, emphasizing the three preconditions: conviction of a serious offence, application by an authorized prosecutor, and reasonable grounds to believe the order would protect the public by preventing or disrupting future serious crime involvement.

The court acknowledged that SCPOs are preventive, not punitive, and must be proportionate given their interference with Article 8 rights. It accepted that the risk of future offending must be real or significant, not merely possible.

Regarding the first defendant, despite his advanced age and serious health conditions, the court found that these factors did not negate the real risk of reoffending, especially given his active participation in two distinct forms of counterfeiting and attempts to conceal his activities. The judge was entitled to prefer his own risk assessment over the probation officer’s low risk evaluation.

The proportionality of the restrictions was confirmed, with the court rejecting the argument that prohibiting possession of a scanner was disproportionate, noting reasonable alternatives existed.

For the second defendant, the court similarly held that the probation officer’s low risk assessment did not bind the judge, and the approaching pensionable age was not a significant mitigating factor against the order. The communication-related restrictions were deemed proportionate given the defendant’s role in the offences and the safeguards requiring separate authorizations for further surveillance.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals of both defendants against the Serious Crime Prevention Orders.

The decision confirms that SCPOs may be imposed where there is a real risk of future serious offending, even in cases involving elderly or ill defendants, provided the orders are proportionate and tailored to the risk. The ruling underscores the preventive, not punitive, nature of SCPOs and affirms the court’s discretion to assess risk beyond probation service evaluations. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of these cases.