Walker, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 September 2023, the Plaintiff pleaded guilty to an offence of affray contrary to section 3(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 25 October 2023, in the Crown Court at The City (Judge McDonald), the Plaintiff was sentenced, on an accepted basis of plea, to a community order for 18 months with three requirements: a Thinking Skills programme, a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement for up to 20 days, and an Unpaid Work Requirement for 180 hours. The Plaintiff was also sentenced to compensation orders of £100 to Victim A and £1,000 to Victim B.

The Plaintiff's co-accused in the affray, the Defendant, was sentenced on a full-facts basis to 12 months' imprisonment for the affray and a concurrent 12-month term for an assault on Victim B. No ancillary orders were made against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff applied for permission to appeal against the compensation orders, contending that they were manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle.

The incident occurred on 31 March 2022 at a public house in The City, where Victim B and Victim A had been drinking. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were part of a larger group present. Victim B was punched by an unidentified male and then struck in the forehead by a glass thrown by the Defendant. Victim A intervened and was subsequently attacked by multiple individuals, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, sustaining several injuries. The incident was captured on CCTV.

Victim B sustained cuts and bruising requiring first aid at the scene, while Victim A had a lump and cuts but did not seek medical treatment. The Plaintiff was arrested and made no comment during police interview.

The Plaintiff, aged 36 at sentencing, had a significant criminal record including offences against the person and public disorder offences. The Plaintiff pleaded guilty on a basis accepted by the Crown, admitting involvement in the affray but denying instigation, use of weapons, or causing injury, acknowledging only throwing three punches.

At sentencing, no victim impact statements or medical evidence beyond initial witness statements and photographs were presented. Mitigation included a Pre-Sentence Report and an employer’s reference, with financial information indicating weekly income and existing financial obligations.

The sentencing judge accepted the Plaintiff’s basis of plea and categorized the offending under Category B3 of the Assault Guidelines. Initial compensation orders were £2,000 to Victim B and £500 to Victim A, later reduced to £1,000 and £100 respectively after submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the compensation orders imposed on the Plaintiff were manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle.
2. Whether there was a sufficient causal link between the Plaintiff’s actions and the injuries sustained by Victim B and Victim A to justify compensation orders.
3. Whether compensation orders can be made against a participant in a joint enterprise affray where the basis of plea denies causing injury.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The compensation order for Victim B was erroneous because the Plaintiff was not responsible for inflicting those injuries, which were attributed solely to the Defendant.
• The £1,000 compensation order for Victim B was manifestly excessive.
• The compensation order for Victim A was inappropriate as the Plaintiff denied causing any injury in the basis of plea.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown acknowledged the potential validity of the argument that the Plaintiff’s compensation order for Victim B was inappropriate due to lack of causation.
• There was no causal link between the Plaintiff’s uncontested basis of plea and Victim B’s injuries, which were addressed in a separate assault charge against the Defendant.
• Victim B did not seek medical treatment or provide a victim impact statement, and there was limited evidence to quantify compensation.
• Victim A was injured during the affray involving the Plaintiff and Defendant as part of a group attack, but no medical treatment or victim impact statement was provided.
• The Crown accepted the basis of plea denying direct injury by the Plaintiff but noted the joint enterprise context could justify compensation, with £100 considered not manifestly excessive given the Plaintiff’s means.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Stafford (Roy) Derby (1990) 12 Cr App R(S) 502	Compensation orders require evidence of causation; a compensation order cannot be made if the offender did not cause the injury.	The court relied on this precedent to determine that compensation orders require a causal link between the offender’s conduct and the injury; the Plaintiff’s compensation order for Victim B was quashed on this basis.
R v Boardman (1987) 9 Cr App R(S) 7	Supports the principle that compensation orders require causation between the offender’s conduct and injury.	Referenced to reinforce the legal principle that causation is necessary for compensation orders, supporting the quashing of the orders against the Plaintiff.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by emphasizing that the Plaintiff was sentenced strictly on the basis of his accepted plea, which denied causing any injury to either Victim B or Victim A. The court noted that Victim B’s injuries were covered by a separate charge and conviction against the Defendant, with no causal link to the Plaintiff’s conduct.

Applying the legal principle from R v Stafford and R v Boardman, the court held that a compensation order requires evidence of causation between the offender’s actions and the injury. Since the Plaintiff’s plea denied causing injury and no causation was established, the compensation order relating to Victim B was manifestly excessive and inappropriate.

Regarding Victim A, although injured in the affray involving both the Plaintiff and Defendant, the Plaintiff’s basis of plea again denied causing injury. The court acknowledged that compensation orders can be appropriate in joint enterprise cases, but on these facts and plea basis, it was not appropriate to impose compensation on the Plaintiff for Victim A’s injuries.

The court further noted limited evidence regarding the nature and extent of injuries, absence of victim impact statements, and insufficient inquiry into the Plaintiff’s means to pay compensation. These factors underscored the inappropriateness of the compensation orders as made.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and QUASHED THE COMPENSATION ORDERS made against the Plaintiff in relation to both Victim B and Victim A.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff is relieved of the obligation to pay the compensation sums previously ordered. No new precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed the established principle that compensation orders require a causal link between the offender’s conduct and the injury suffered by the victim, and that sentencing must be consistent with the accepted basis of plea.