Quentin Hunt was instructed to represent Mr RS under the Direct Public Access scheme in an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against the imposition and terms of a Serious Crime Prevention Order imposed by Manchester Crown Court. Quentin had not represented the defendant at trial but had been instructed to conduct the SCPO proceedings.
The matter was granted leave to appeal by the single judge and was heard before Lady Justice Macur, Mr. justice Julian Knowles and His Honour Judge Edmunds.
Quentin submitted that there were procedural deficiencies in the process of the obtaining of the order and argued in the alternative that the terms of the order were not in accordance with the legislation. His arguments were that:
(i) The applicant for the SCPO was not authorised to make the application.
(ii) The judge erred in her assessment that there was evidence to establish that there was a future serious risk that A1 and A2 would commit further serious offences and that an SCPO was necessary to protect the public by preventing, restricting, or disrupting their involvement in serious crime in England and Wales.
(iii) Alternatively, the terms of the order are disproportionate, excessive, and unworkable.
Following argument, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgement stating that they agreed with Quentin’s first ground of appeal and there was a procedural irregularity such that the Serious Crime Prevention Order was a nullity, the order was set aside and the appeal allowed. The Court also indicated that had the order not been a nullity they would have allowed the appeal, in part, on Quentin’s further grounds that the terms of the order were disproportionate.
The appeal can be found at R v Shirley & Anor  EWCA Crim 475.
Cases | 13 May 22