Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns the appellant, referred to as ANZ, who was convicted on 23 February 2024 at the Crown Court at Shrewsbury of four offences: three counts of sexual activity with a child family member and one count of cruelty to a person under 16 years. The victim was ANZ's daughter, and the offending occurred between 2003 and 2007 when she was aged between 13 and 15 years. The appellant was acquitted of five other similar charges. On 30 April 2024, ANZ was sentenced to concurrent suspended sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment each, with additional requirements including rehabilitation, unpaid work, a restraining order, notification provisions, and a compensation order of £10,000 payable at £400 per month starting 1 July 2024. This appeal concerns solely the Compensation Order.
The appellant was in custody on remand at the time of sentencing. Other grounds of appeal were refused and not renewed, leaving only the challenge to the Compensation Order. The appellant’s offending involved repeated sexual abuse and cruelty, including neglect and threats to silence the victim. The victim made a police report in 2021, and the appellant denied the allegations in interview. The sentencing judge had the benefit of a victim personal statement describing the profound impact of the abuse and cruelty endured.
The appellant had some previous convictions of historic indecent exposure offences, but these were deemed irrelevant to sentencing. The prosecution did not seek a compensation order, and no submissions were made in mitigation regarding it. The sentencing judge imposed the compensation order based on a presumption about the appellant’s ability to pay, referencing his prior employment and pension prospects. Subsequent to sentencing, it was realised that the mandatory requirement to consider the appellant’s means before making a compensation order had not been complied with. An application to relist the matter was refused by the sentencing judge.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court failed to make necessary enquiries into the appellant’s means before making the Compensation Order;
- Whether the failure to consider the appellant’s means rendered the Compensation Order unlawful and manifestly excessive.
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 York [2018] EWCA Crim 2754 |
Six principles for imposing compensation orders, including mandatory enquiry into offender’s means and ensuring orders are realistic. |
The court applied these principles to find the sentencing judge failed to comply with mandatory requirements, rendering the order unlawful. |
| R v Inwood (1974) 60 Cr App R 70 |
Compensation orders are intended as a quick alternative to civil litigation when the offender clearly has means to pay. |
Used to emphasize that compensation orders are not a substitute for sentencing and must be for straightforward cases. |
| R v Donovan (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 192 |
Compensation orders should be for simple, straightforward cases where compensation amount is readily ascertainable. |
Supported the view that detailed inquiries into loss should be left to civil proceedings. |
| R v Stapylton [2012] EWCA Crim 728 |
Compensation orders require clear evidence of loss and no real dispute about the beneficiary’s entitlement. |
Cited to reinforce that compensation orders are inappropriate where detailed loss assessment is required. |
| Pola v Health and Safety Executive [2009] EWCA Crim 655 |
Upholding of a substantial compensation order where detailed evidence of loss and offender’s means was properly considered. |
Distinguished from the present case to highlight the lack of detailed evidence and proper enquiry in this appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the statutory regime governing compensation orders under sections 133 to 135 of the Sentencing Act 2020, emphasizing the mandatory requirement under section 135(3)(b) to have regard to the offender's means before making such an order. It found no evidence that the sentencing judge made any enquiry into the appellant's financial situation or considered any information about his means. The vague presumption about the appellant’s employability did not satisfy the statutory requirement.
The court applied the six principles from R v York, noting that the sentencing judge failed to comply with the first three principles, making it impossible to assess whether the order was realistic. The absence of any meaningful enquiry deprived the appellant of the opportunity to make representations on his means, rendering the Compensation Order unlawful.
The court further reflected on the nature of compensation orders as intended for clear and straightforward cases with readily ascertainable loss, citing authorities such as R v Inwood, R v Donovan, and R v Stapylton. It contrasted the present case with Pola v Health and Safety Executive, where detailed evidence and findings supported a substantial compensation order.
The court also considered the practical implications of the Compensation Order in this case, including the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which is designed as a last resort and would likely reduce any award payable by the state by the amount ordered in the criminal court. It noted that the order’s imposition may have inadvertently disadvantaged the victim.
Moreover, the court observed that imposing a compensation order alongside a custodial sentence in a complex case of sexual abuse and cruelty is inherently difficult and may prolong the offender’s adverse impact on the victim’s life. It emphasized that compensation orders should not be used as a substitute for appropriate sentencing and that suspending custodial sentences based on an offender’s ability to pay compensation would be contrary to principle.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and QUASHED THE COMPENSATION ORDER.
The direct effect is that the compensation order of £10,000 imposed on the appellant is set aside due to the failure to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement to consider the appellant’s means. The court declined to remit the matter to the Crown Court for reconsideration of the compensation order. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the strict necessity of compliance with the statutory framework for compensation orders and the inappropriateness of such orders in complex cases requiring detailed assessment of loss. The decision underscores that compensation orders are reserved for clear, straightforward cases and must not substitute for sentencing or circumvent established compensation schemes for victims.