Al Magloub, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This application concerns a Criminal Behaviour Order imposed on the Appellant, aged 23, following sentencing at the Crown Court at Isleworth on 11 October 2023. The Appellant was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for robbery and a concurrent four-month term for fraud. The Appellant challenges three prohibitions imposed by the Criminal Behaviour Order, seeking an extension of time to appeal, which was granted by the full court.

On 31 January 2023, the Appellant and a co-defendant confronted a victim in Westminster, London, forcibly taking the victim’s satchel containing high-value items, constituting robbery. The co-defendant threatened the victim with a firearm, which was not seen but suspected. Subsequently, the Appellant and co-defendant used the victim’s bank card fraudulently. The Appellant has a significant criminal history including theft and assault offences and suffers from psychiatric and addiction issues. The Recorder considered these factors in sentencing and imposed a three-year Criminal Behaviour Order with five prohibitions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal the Criminal Behaviour Order.
2. Whether the specific prohibitions imposed under the Criminal Behaviour Order were lawful, proportionate, and properly tailored to the Appellant’s circumstances, particularly:
   • The prohibition on being in a group of two or more people in a public place unless with family members.
   • The prohibition on possession of more than one mobile phone or SIM card.
   • The prohibition on entering the Borough of Westminster.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The prohibition against being in a group of two or more people in public (except family) is overly broad, lacking rational connection to the Appellant’s conduct, and restricts necessary interactions such as meetings with Social Services.
• This prohibition infringes the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and could lead to unjustified arrests breaching Articles 5 and 7.
• The restriction on possession of more than one mobile phone is unjustified due to lack of evidence linking the Appellant to activities (e.g., drug dealing) typically associated with such a prohibition.
• The prohibition on entering the Borough of Westminster is disproportionate and not sufficiently tailored, despite some incidents of antisocial behaviour in that area.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent conceded that the prohibition on group presence in public should be removed as it did not meet the statutory test.
• Supported the prohibition on mobile phone possession, citing intelligence that the Appellant had admitted to drug dealing and that multiple phones are common in such activity.
• Maintained that the prohibition on entering the Borough of Westminster was appropriate given the Appellant’s repeated antisocial behaviour there and the nature of the area.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the extension of time for appeal, finding the delay adequately explained and granting leave to appeal.

Regarding the Criminal Behaviour Order, the court confirmed that the statutory threshold for making such an order was met, given the Appellant’s conduct causing harassment, alarm, and distress.

The court reviewed each challenged prohibition:

• Prohibition on being in a group of two or more in public (except family): The court found this prohibition excessively broad, unclear, and difficult to enforce. It would restrict lawful and necessary interactions, such as meetings with Social Services, and relied improperly on police discretion for enforcement. The Recorder’s sentencing remarks did not justify this prohibition. Consequently, the court held this prohibition was not a lawful exercise of discretion and quashed it.
• Prohibition on possession of more than one mobile phone: Supported by evidence of the Appellant’s escalating criminality and intelligence linking multiple phones to drug dealing. The prohibition was clear, precise, and proportionate, limited to three years, and enforceable. The court upheld this prohibition.
• Prohibition on entering the Borough of Westminster: The area was clearly defined, and the prohibition was proportionate given the Appellant’s history of antisocial behaviour there. It did not affect lawful activities outside the area and could be varied if circumstances changed. The court upheld this prohibition.

The court emphasized that intervention on appeal requires demonstration of error by the sentencing judge, not mere disagreement with the decision.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal.

The appeal was ALLOWED IN PART by quashing the prohibition preventing the Appellant from being in a group of two or more people in a public place unless with family members.

The appeal was DISMISSED in all other respects, maintaining the prohibitions on possession of more than one mobile phone, entering the Borough of Westminster, possession of knives in public, and association with the co-defendant.

The Criminal Behaviour Order remains in force with four prohibitions continuing, and only the challenged group prohibition is removed. No broader precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.