Key Facts
- •Abdur Sidat appealed a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) imposed after his conviction for conspiracy to supply class A drugs, possession of cannabis, and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear.
- •Sidat was significantly involved in a large-scale drug operation, 'Operation Trent,' handling storage, adulteration, and distribution of drugs.
- •He possessed a firearm and was involved in numerous calls related to the drug operation.
- •The confiscation proceedings found Sidat benefited from the crime by £51,320.
- •The SCPO imposed restrictions on phone use, access to electronic devices, cash possession, premises, business activities, and vehicle use.
- •The SCPO's duration was five years, longer than some other defendants in the same case.
Legal Principles
A SCPO is not a punishment but a preventative measure to protect the public.
R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102
For a SCPO, there must be reasonable grounds to believe the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting, or disrupting involvement in serious crime.
Serious Crime Act 2007
There must be a real or significant risk, not a mere possibility, of the defendant committing further serious offences.
R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102
SCPO proceedings are civil, and the court isn't limited to evidence admissible in criminal proceedings. The assessment of future risk is a matter of judgment.
R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102
Appeals against SCPOs are limited to review; the court of appeal doesn't substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.
R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102
SCPOs must be proportionate to the risk posed and must not disproportionately infringe Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life).
R v Hancox and Duffy [2010] EWCA Crim 102; EB(Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the judge properly applied the legal test for SCPOs, considering the future risk posed by Sidat. The duration and terms of the order were deemed proportionate to that risk, even if not precisely tailored to his past actions. The prior conviction and involvement in the firearms offence were considered relevant factors.