Category

Restriction order cases

The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.

The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary Date added Categories
R v G (A) [2013] EWCA Crim 2256, [2013] MHLO 130 — Unsuccessful appeal against restriction order. [Summary required.] 2013‑12‑30 14:35:21 2013 cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Parkins [2012] EWCA Crim 856, [2012] MHLO 50The sentencing judge had not been wrong to impose a restriction order contrary to the medical recommendations. 2012‑05‑05 13:44:51 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Lucas [2012] EWCA Crim 182, [2012] MHLO 16The renewed application for extension of time (the delay being caused by the appellant pondering negative legal advice before deciding to appeal anyway) in which to apply for leave to appeal against restriction order was refused, as there was ample material to justify the restriction order. 2012‑03‑05 20:47:40 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Chiles [2012] EWCA Crim 196, [2012] MHLO 10The judge should not have should not have taken into account her concerns about the future of the NHS (she had said, 'I cannot be confident in the current fluctuating state of the NHS that the security that the public needs to be protected from you will be ensured unless there is an another government department which has input into the issue of your release and that is what I will achieve by the section 41 order') but there was ample material to justify the conclusion that a restriction order was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. 2012‑03‑01 22:27:40 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Shah [2011] EWCA Crim 2333Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body. 2011‑11‑21 23:00:06 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 2473On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.] 2011‑11‑21 20:08:44 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Abdi [2011] EWCA Crim 2179Unsuccessful appeal against s41 restriction order. 2011‑10‑13 22:43:27 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 1456The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician. 2011‑06‑22 20:01:22 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Chowdhury [2011] EWCA Crim 936The judge imposed a restriction order (contrary to the medical recommendations) because of the serious nature of the offence and his concerns about previous non-compliance. The Court of Appeal were willing to quash the restriction order if the appellant made the following undertakings: to surrender his Bangladeshi passport; not to apply for another Bangladeshi passport; to surrender his UK passport; not to apply for another UK passport; not to apply for any other travel documents; and to give irrevocable instructions that such documents are not to be returned to him without the written consent of his treating psychiatrist. 2011‑04‑30 17:31:33 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Patsalosavvis [2010] EWCA Crim 1383The appellant had received a restricted hospital order for making bomb hoax calls; the restriction order was quashed. 2010‑07‑10 18:13:43 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Restriction order cases


* Appeal against restriction order R v Osker [2010] EWCA Crim 955Successful appeal against restriction order. 2010‑05‑06 23:12:32 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Hurst [2007] EWCA Crim 3436The restriction order was set aside as: (1) there was insufficient evidence that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm; (2) the judge did not explain why he had rejected the medical evidence, which was against the imposition of a restriction order. 2009‑11‑24 20:56:09 2007 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Czarnota (Michael) [2002] EWCA Crim 785 — Restriction order quashed on appeal. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:15:04 2002 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Safi [2007] EWCA Crim 1392 — Appeal against restriction order dismissed. 2009‑04‑13 20:44:56 2007 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Rosso (Rosario) [2003] EWCA Crim 3242(1) The police had been entitled to force entry into a hotel room in order to detain the defendant pursuant to an application under s2; no warrant under s135 was required as they had the owners' permission and the defendant had no right to deny them entry; therefore the appeal against conviction was refused; (2) the appeal against the restriction order was also refused. 2009‑04‑11 15:50:38 2003 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v R [2002] EWCA Crim 165 — Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 14:45:14 2002 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Kearney [2002] EWCA Crim 2772 — Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 14:41:16 2002 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Goode [2002] EWCA Crim 1698 — Appeal against restriction order refused. 2009‑04‑11 14:32:46 2002 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Reynolds (Daniel Ferdinand George) [2000] EWCA Crim 3539 — Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 13:03:19 2000 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Jones (Michelle Louise) [2000] EWCA Crim 3538 — Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 12:42:57 2000 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Kamara [2000] EWCA Crim 17 — Appeal against restriction order dismissed. 2009‑04‑11 12:21:33 2000 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Crookes [1999] EWCA Crim 1065On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal. [MHLR.] 2009‑04‑11 12:20:41 1999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Cox (Lee Michael) [1999] EWCA Crim 848The judge was able to impose a restriction order against the views of the doctors giving evidence; there was assistance as to the meaning of “serious harm” in the s31 Criminal Justice Act 1991, and so it covered serious physical or psychological injury; the risk of such harm had to be real, not fanciful or remote. [MHLR.] 2009‑04‑11 12:18:36 1999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Disley v [1996] EWCA Crim 362 — Appeal against restriction order dismissed. 2009‑04‑11 12:17:16 1996 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


Jones v Isleworth Crown Court [2005] EWHC 662 (Admin)Although the offender had not caused serious harm in the past, and the medical evidence did not recommend a restriction order, the judge was right to impose restrictions on the admission order under Schedule 1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 on the basis that there was a risk of serious harm to the public, because of the history of paranoid schizophrenia with violent command auditory hallucinations and an escalation of violent offending. 2009‑01‑17 22:57:21 2005 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Paul Martin [1998] EWCA Crim 3166The power to make a restriction order applies in cases where the patient poses a risk of serious harm from which the public needs protection. This is not the seriousness of the risk that the public may suffer some harm, but that the risk that the potential harm represented by the individual defendant would be serious. There should normally be some proportionate relationship between the instant offence and the history of offending, together with an assessment of risk on the basis of medical examinations before a section 41 restriction order is made. Restriction order quashed. 2008‑09‑22 06:42:18 1998 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript


R v Golding [2006] EWCA Crim 1965 — Imposition of restriction order was justified on the facts. 2008‑09‑12 17:09:11 2006 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript