Key Facts
- •Curtis Pearson was sentenced to 25 months imprisonment for intentional strangulation and assault, plus 3 months consecutive for breaching a suspended sentence.
- •A 10-year restraining order was imposed, prohibiting contact with Cacey Orrick, entering Morpeth, and entering buildings where she resides, works, or frequents.
- •The appeal concerned the length of the sentence and the Morpeth prohibition in the restraining order.
- •The single judge granted leave to appeal regarding the Morpeth prohibition but refused leave to appeal against the sentence length.
- •The victim, Cacey Orrick, stated she lived in fear, had difficulty sleeping, and suffered flashbacks due to the assault.
- •The appellant argued the Morpeth prohibition was disproportionate due to its size and ambiguity, hindering his employment and rehabilitation.
- •The court found the Morpeth prohibition lacked precision and redefined it using the parish boundary.
- •The court reduced the Morpeth prohibition from 10 years to 5 years.
- •The court declared the appellant entitled to 200 days' credit towards his sentence for time spent on electronically monitored curfew.
Legal Principles
Principles governing restraining orders: consider the victim's views; impose only if necessary; terms and duration must be proportionate to the harm; take particular care when children are involved.
R v Khellaf [2016] EWCA Crim 1297
Section 325(4) of the Sentencing Code requires the Crown Court to specify, in open court, the number of days to be credited towards sentence for qualifying curfew.
Sentencing Code
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Morpeth prohibition in the restraining order lacked precision and was disproportionately long.
Morpeth prohibition redefined using the parish boundary.
To address the geographical uncertainty of the original prohibition.
Duration of Morpeth prohibition reduced from 10 years to 5 years.
The 10-year prohibition was deemed disproportionate.
Declaration that the appellant is entitled to 200 days' credit towards his sentence for time spent on electronically monitored curfew.
To comply with section 325(4) of the Sentencing Code.