Plackett, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 September 2021, the appellant and his brother attended a funeral and later were intoxicated at a public house in The City. The appellant assaulted the bar manager by head-butting her nose, causing a broken nose and bleeding injuries. Police officers arrived to arrest the appellant, who resisted arrest and headbutted a police constable (PC Keat). The appellant was then restrained and arrested. The brother assaulted PC Keat further, causing serious injury. The appellant pleaded guilty on 20 September 2021 to assault by beating an emergency worker, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and obstructing a police constable. On 15 November 2023, the Crown Court sentenced the appellant to suspended sentences with conditions and ordered compensation payments of £2,000 each to the bar manager and PC Keat. The appellant appeals only the compensation orders by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the compensation amounts of £2,000 each to the victims were commensurate with the injuries sustained.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred by not inviting submissions on compensation and by insufficiently considering the appellant's means to pay.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons for the compensation orders and the identical amounts awarded to victims with differing injuries.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The compensation sums of £2,000 to each victim were not proportionate to the injuries, particularly given the bar manager's undisplaced nasal fracture and the police constable's less severe injury.
• The judge did not seek submissions on compensation or properly assess the appellant’s financial means before making the orders.
• The judge failed to provide reasons for the compensation figures or explain why both victims received the same amount despite different injury severities.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v York [2019] 1 Cr App R(S) 41	Principles for imposing compensation orders, including the need to inquire into offender’s means and to ensure compensation is realistic and payable within a reasonable time.	The court applied these principles to assess whether the sentencing judge properly inquired into means and the appropriateness of compensation amounts.
Rex v Duane Walker [2024] EWCA 772	Emphasizes the need for sufficient inquiry into offender’s means and the extent of victim’s injuries before imposing compensation orders.	The court referenced this case to underline the importance of evidence on injury severity and offender’s ability to pay.
R v Phillips (Mark Adrian) [1988] 10 Cr App R(S) 419	Requirement that judges put defence counsel on notice about compensation orders to elicit submissions on means and amount.	Used to support the proposition that the sentencing judge should have invited submissions on compensation and appellant’s means.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined the appropriateness of the compensation amounts relative to the injuries sustained. It found the £2,000 ordered for the bar manager was appropriate considering her undisplaced nasal fracture and mental anxiety evidenced in her victim personal statement. For the police constable, the court considered £2,000 excessive given the injury was less severe and no fracture was caused by the appellant. A figure of £700 was deemed more suitable.

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge did not explicitly invite submissions on compensation or make detailed findings about the appellant’s means. However, it was clear that the judge had sufficient information on the appellant’s employment, income, savings, and lifestyle to make an informed decision on the compensation and payment schedule. The court expressed that inviting submissions would have been preferable but did not find a material error in principle.

Regarding reasons for the compensation amounts, the court noted the sentencing judge gave some explanation linking the appellant’s means and payment terms but did not explicitly differentiate the amounts between victims. The court considered this a shortcoming but found the judge was entitled to conclude the appellant could pay the amounts within the set timescale.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal in part by reducing the compensation order for the police constable to £700, quashing the previous £2,000 order. The compensation order for the bar manager was upheld.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL IN PART.

The compensation order of £2,000 in favor of the police constable was quashed and replaced with a reduced sum of £700, with no further payments required given amounts already paid. The compensation order for the bar manager was upheld and remains payable at £100 per month as originally ordered. This decision directly affects the appellant’s financial obligations but does not establish new legal precedent beyond reinforcing existing principles on compensation orders and sentencing procedure.