Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal against sentence following the Appellant's guilty pleas in the Crown Court to offences of possessing an offensive weapon and inflicting grievous bodily harm. On 3 March 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by Judge Jack to a total sentence of ten months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with an unpaid work requirement. Judge Jack ordered payment of a victim surcharge of £156, prosecution costs of £700, and a compensation order of £10,600; the latter two sums were ordered to be paid at the rate of £500 per month.

The application to the appellate court is limited to an appeal against the compensation order (and is taken to include the costs order). The Registrar referred the application to the full court on grounds that the correct procedure was not followed in making the compensation order: specifically, that no submissions as to calculation or means to pay were invited and that the court should consider whether inclusion of amounts for 'aggravating features' and delay was appropriate.

Factual background (as found in the sentencing materials): on 5 July 2020 the Appellant, while driving, was overtaken by the Plaintiff on a public road. The Plaintiff had children in the car. After a subsequent puncture and an exchange between the drivers, the Appellant allegedly followed the Plaintiff to his home, assaulted him with a metal bar in the presence of the Plaintiff's wife, and caused injuries including elbow injuries and broken ribs. The Appellant then made off and changed his vehicle's number plates. An image taken by the Plaintiff led to the Appellant's arrest. In interview, the Appellant declined to answer ("No comment").

The pre-sentence report noted that the Appellant had prior good character and provided some information as to means: the Appellant had various qualifications, had engaged in car-related trades and set up a restaurant business for which he borrowed £16,000, paid towards a mortgage, and supported a wife and child; monies were described as "tight" but the author considered regular payments towards a compensation order might reasonably be required. The Appellant's representative updated the court that the Appellant received universal credit and child benefit, that the restaurant generated no profit at the time, and that a further child had been born.

At sentencing, prosecution counsel informed the sentencing judge that no victim impact statement had been located and that "there does not appear to be the need for any ancillary orders or consideration of ancillary orders." The sentencing judge nonetheless proceeded to make the compensation and costs orders as described above. The Appellant sought leave to appeal the compensation order; leave was granted and the court proceeded to consider the merits.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge followed the correct procedure when imposing a compensation order, including conducting and recording a means enquiry and inviting representations on calculation and ability to pay.
2. Whether the Crown Court may properly include sums for "aggravating features" and delay when calculating a compensation order of the sort imposed.
3. Whether the compensation order and related costs order were excessive or otherwise wrong in principle such that they should be quashed or varied on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Henry in writing and Attorney Hale in oral submissions)

• Reliance on sections 133–135 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the decision in R v [Last Name] [2018] EWCA Crim 2754 to assert the correct procedural steps for imposing a compensation order, including: (i) provision of evidence of means; (ii) the judge enquiring into and making clear findings about means; (iii) taking means into account; (iv) ensuring the order is realistically capable of being paid within a reasonable time; (v) fixing amounts with regard to instalments and payment period; and (vi) not making orders on the assumption another will pay.
• Submission that the sentencing judge failed to give any prior indication of intention to impose a compensation order, sought no information or representations as to means, made no findings about means, and therefore committed a procedural irregularity rendering the order wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.
• Submission that the sentencing judge should not have awarded any sum for aggravated damages or delay in the context of a compensation order in the Crown Court.

Prosecution/Respondent Position

• At sentencing prosecution counsel stated there was no victim impact statement and indicated that there did not appear to be any need for ancillary orders or consideration of ancillary orders. The transcript shows no challenge by the sentencing judge to that position prior to making the orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v [Last Name] [2018] EWCA Crim 2754	Procedural requirements and principles governing lawful imposition of compensation orders (steps for means enquiry, considerations as to ability to pay, and ensuring orders are capable of being paid within a reasonable time).	The court relied on the procedural framework reflected in this authority (and statutory provisions) to conclude the sentencing judge had failed to follow the correct procedure and therefore the compensation order (and costs order) were unsound and should be quashed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing transcript, the pre-sentence report, and submissions on appeal. It identified the following analytical steps and findings, stated in the opinion:

1. The applicable legal framework requires a sentencing judge, when imposing a compensation order, to conduct a means enquiry: to invite and consider evidence and representations about the offender's means, make clear findings about those means, and take them into account in calculating the quantum and the instalment plan so that the order is realistically capable of being paid within a reasonable time. The court cited sections 133–135 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and R v [Last Name] in support of these principles.
2. The sentencing judge in this case had some limited material about means in the pre-sentence report, but gave no prior indication of an intention to impose a compensation order and did not invite representations from counsel or make enquiries sufficient to establish the Appellant's ability to pay. There were no clear findings recorded about means.
3. The court placed weight on the fact that prosecution counsel had explicitly indicated that there was no need for ancillary orders or consideration of ancillary orders; the sentencing judge nevertheless proceeded to make a compensation order without following the expected procedure.
4. The sentencing judge calculated the compensation figure by reference to civil damages guidelines (Judicial College Guidelines) and added sums for aggravating features (£3,000) and delay (£600). The appellate court considered that this approach amounted to the imposition of amounts akin to aggravated damages and interest/delay in a civil damages assessment — a process inappropriate for and unsuitably undertaken by the Crown Court at sentence without the proper procedural safeguards.
5. Given the procedural failures and the inappropriate inclusion of sums for aggravation and delay, the court concluded the compensation order was made in error. The court also concluded the costs order should be quashed.
6. The appellate court considered whether to substitute an alternative order. Having heard updated submissions about the Appellant's means, the court stated it was not satisfied that the Appellant's means or ability to pay justified making any alternative order in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court quashed the compensation order for £10,600 and the prosecution costs order for £700.

Implications and consequences:

• Direct effect: The compensation order and the costs order imposed by Judge Jack on 3 March 2024 are set aside in their entirety; no alternative orders were substituted by the appellate court.
• Procedural guidance: The decision reaffirms that sentencing judges must follow the proper procedural steps (means enquiry, representations, clear findings, and realistic assessment of payment ability and period) before imposing compensation orders. The court emphasised that the Crown Court should not embark on a process comparable to awarding civil damages without proper procedure.
• Broader precedent: The opinion does not purport to create a new legal test beyond applying existing statutory provisions and authority; it resolves the appeal by applying established procedural requirements and quashing the orders made without adequate process.