Webb-Johnson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was charged with stalking involving serious alarm or distress contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, alleged to have occurred between January and August 2018 by sending communications to two individuals referred to as "the Cookes". The Appellant denied the allegations. At a Crown Court hearing in September 2024, the prosecution offered no evidence, leading to a directed not guilty verdict. With the Appellant's consent, a restraining order was imposed for three years. The Appellant was granted limited leave to appeal against the restraining order.

The background involves a history of disputes between the Appellant and the Cookes, who operated a tattoo business adjacent to a property occupied by the Appellant’s fiancée. In 2015, the Cookes accused the Appellant of harassment, but the prosecution discontinued those proceedings. The Appellant sought to revive the case to clear his name. Subsequently, the Appellant initiated civil proceedings against the Cookes for malicious prosecution. The stalking allegations arose later, with the last contact between the parties in July 2018. The Appellant was arrested in August 2018 on suspicion of stalking but was only formally charged in January 2020 and remained on unconditional bail until September 2024.

During the criminal proceedings, the prosecution twice offered to drop the stalking charge if the Appellant agreed to a restraining order, which he initially declined. Difficulties arose in securing the Cookes’ attendance at court, with one reluctant and the other unable to attend. At the hearing in September 2024, the prosecution offered no evidence conditioned on the Appellant agreeing to the restraining order. The Crown Court judge, after considering the evidence and submissions, found the restraining order necessary and proportionate and imposed it for three years. The Appellant appealed the order, challenging the judge’s application of the legal test for necessity.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court judge correctly applied the test of necessity under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 when imposing a restraining order following the Appellant’s acquittal.
2. Whether the evidence before the judge was sufficient to establish, on the civil standard, that a restraining order was necessary to protect the Cookes from harassment by the Appellant.
3. Whether the judge erred by failing to consider the significant passage of time since the last alleged conduct and the absence of fresh complaints or evidence justifying the order.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The notice of intention to apply for the restraining order lacked specificity, failing to identify the factual basis, relevant evidence, or reasons for imposing the order.
• No witness statements from the Cookes supported the necessity of the order, and no hearsay notices were served.
• The prosecution’s claim of "residual fears" was insufficient to satisfy the necessity test, especially given the last alleged conduct occurred over six years earlier.
• Even with additional information, the necessity test could not be met considering the Appellant’s age, mental health issues, good character, and denial of allegations.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge correctly applied the necessity test and gave adequate reasons identifying the factual basis for the order.
• The brief notice of application was agreed with the Appellant’s former leading counsel, indicating consent to the order.
• Reference to R v Dennis supported that detailed findings are unnecessary where the order is unopposed and the judge is satisfied on the evidence that the order is necessary.
• The judge was entitled to infer necessity from the overall history, including the Appellant’s conduct resuming after bail ended, supported by a police officer’s statement that the harassment ceased only while the Appellant was on bail.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Buckley [2023] EWCA Crim 84	Requirement to consider whether there is a significant future risk of harassment when making restraining orders post-acquittal.	Ground of appeal raised based on this case; court considered whether the judge properly applied this principle.
R v McCarren [2023] EWCA Crim 1233	Summary of principles governing restraining orders under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.	Court relied on this summary to assess the necessity and evidential requirements for the restraining order.
R v Major [2010] EWCA Crim 3016	Requirement to assess future risk based on defendant’s conduct and civil standard of proof for restraining orders.	Referenced to clarify evidential and procedural standards in making restraining orders post-acquittal.
R v Baldwin [2021] EWCA Crim 703	Procedural requirements including serving notices and hearsay notices when applying for restraining orders.	Guided the court on procedural fairness and evidential clarity in restraining order applications.
R v Dennis [2014] EWCA Crim 2331	Where restraining order terms are agreed and not opposed, detailed findings are not necessary if the judge is satisfied on the evidence.	Respondent relied on this to argue brevity and consent justified the order without extensive reasoning.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on whether the evidential basis before the Crown Court judge sufficed to establish the necessity of the restraining order on the civil standard. The court accepted that while the Appellant’s consent and agreement with leading counsel were relevant, they could not substitute for evidence demonstrating necessity. The judge must independently identify and be satisfied by evidence justifying the order because it significantly restricts liberty and carries criminal penalties for breach.

The court noted the notice of intention to apply was vague and failed to specify the factual basis or evidence supporting necessity. The judge’s ruling did not explain the nature of the Cookes’ "residual fears" or why such fears justified the order after a six-year lapse without alleged offending conduct. The absence of fresh witness statements or hearsay evidence explaining the need for protection was critical.

The court rejected the respondent’s submission that necessity could be inferred from the overall history and the Appellant’s agreement. It emphasized that the respondent should have obtained proper evidence, either direct or hearsay, to explain the ongoing need for protection. The court also declined to consider new evidence not before the trial judge, such as a recent police officer’s statement.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the evidential foundation was insufficient and that the judge erred in making the restraining order despite the Appellant’s consent.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and QUASHED THE RESTRAINING ORDER.

The direct effect is that the restraining order imposed on the Appellant following acquittal is set aside due to insufficient evidential basis establishing necessity. The decision does not establish new precedent but reaffirms the requirement that restraining orders under section 5A must be supported by clear evidence demonstrating necessity to protect from future harassment. Consent by the defendant alone cannot substitute for such evidence.