Key Facts
- •Jason Juul, aged 54, applied to discharge a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) made in May 2022.
- •Juul has a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for fraud, theft, and stalking.
- •The SCPO was imposed following convictions for breaching a previous SCPO.
- •Juul claims a change of circumstances due to his permanent relocation to Russia, rendering the SCPO unenforceable.
- •The defendants argue no change of circumstances exists, as Juul's relocation was a breach of his SCPO and licence conditions.
Legal Principles
Imposition, variation, and discharge of SCPOs are governed by Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Serious Crime Act 2007
The test for imposing an SCPO is whether the court has reasonable grounds to believe it would protect the public from serious crime.
Serious Crime Act 2007, section 19(2)
SCPOs are preventive, not punitive, and require a prospective risk assessment.
Sections 4 and 5
The High Court may discharge an SCPO only if it considers a change of circumstances affecting the order exists.
Serious Crime Act 2007, section 18(3)
Appeals against SCPO decisions are to the Court of Appeal, with leave required.
Serious Crime Act 2007, section 24
The standard of proof in SCPO discharge applications is the civil standard (balance of probabilities).
Serious Crime Act 2007, section 35
Legislation is generally presumed not to have extra-territorial effect, unless explicitly stated.
R v (KBR Inc) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2021] UKSC 2
Outcomes
The claim to discharge the SCPO was dismissed.
The court found no change of circumstances affecting the order within the meaning of section 18 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Juul's relocation was a consequence of his own actions in breaching the SCPO and was not a sufficient change of circumstances. Further, the court deemed Juul's arguments to be a collateral attack on the original imposition of the order, a matter for the Court of Appeal.