Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty at The Crown Court on 16 May 2025 to two offences of possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. The accepted Basis of Plea stated that the offending was "social supply": a group pooled money, a friend purchased the drugs, the Appellant helped split them and received no financial reward. On 1 July 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent suspended terms of 22 months' imprisonment (suspended for 2 years). At that sentencing hearing the Appellee applied for a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO). The CBO application was served on defence counsel only as the judge was entering court and was uploaded to the electronic case system during the hearing; the supporting statement from a police officer was dated 31 December 2024 and described facts inconsistent with the accepted Basis of Plea. The sentencing judge imposed a five-year CBO with conditions restricting the Appellant's possession of mobile phones and SIM cards. The Appellant appealed; a Single Judge granted leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal heard the matter.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory test for making a Criminal Behaviour Order under section 331(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 was satisfied on the agreed factual basis (i.e., whether the Appellant engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and whether the order would help prevent such behaviour).
2. Whether the Appellee breached the Criminal Procedure Rules by serving notice of the CBO application too late (contrary to Rule 31.3(1)(a)(iii) and 31.3(2)).
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering and imposing a CBO "on the hoof" without an appropriate evidential foundation, contrary to the requirement that CBOs be imposed with caution and tailored to individual circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Lavers)

• The imposition of a CBO was not warranted given the accepted Basis of Plea of social supply.
• There was an insufficient evidential foundation to establish the necessary link between the accepted behaviour and conduct causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
• The Prosecution's late service of the CBO application breached the Criminal Procedure Rules and prejudiced the defence and court process.

Prosecution's Arguments (Attorney Johnson / Attorney Evans)

• The Prosecution sought a CBO as a necessary and proportionate measure, relying on a police officer's statement (dated 31 December 2024) and the officer being present in court to make the application.
• It was submitted that the offending, even if characterised as social supply, involved Class A drugs at a serious level and that mobile phones had assisted the activity; the Appellant's previous convictions and the pre-sentence report suggested a risk of re-offending.
• The Sentencing Note (prepared by Attorney Evans) identified ancillary orders the Prosecution intended to seek (forfeiture/destruction and costs) and the Prosecution proceeded to seek the CBO at sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the matter as follows:

• The statutory power to make a CBO derives from section 331(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020; breach of a CBO carries serious sanctions (section 339(2)(b)).
• The Criminal Procedure Rules (Rule 31.3(1)(a)(iii) and 31.3(2)) require the prosecutor to serve notice of a CBO application "as soon as practicable (without waiting for the verdict)". The Prosecution's service at the start of the sentencing hearing breached those rules.
• The supporting statement for the CBO was dated 31 December 2024 and was based on analysis of facts the Prosecution had agreed not to pursue in light of the accepted Basis of Plea; there had been ample opportunity (over months and earlier listings) for the Prosecution to notify the application earlier.
• The Court applied the guidance in R v Khan that CBOs must be imposed with caution and tailored to the individual and concluded the sentencing judge was drawn into error by considering and imposing a CBO on the basis of late, inconsistent material.
• The Court found that, on the agreed Basis of Plea (social supply), the judge could not properly conclude that the Appellant had engaged in behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress by use of mobile phones in a way that justified the CBO restrictions; that conclusion was unreasonable and inconsistent with the agreed facts.
• The Court also noted a drafting error in the CBO as recorded by the Crown Court (the order as drawn used affirmative language incorrectly), reflecting a lack of care in making such orders.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Criminal Behaviour Order imposed by the Crown Court.

Implications: The direct effect is that the five-year CBO and its phone/SIM restrictions are set aside as to the Appellant. The Court emphasised that CBOs must not be imposed without proper notice and an evidential foundation consistent with agreed facts; no new legal precedent beyond the applied authorities was created by this decision.

Administrative note: This summary has anonymised individuals and entities in accordance with the provided instruction.