Court of Appeal upholds Criminal Behaviour Order in R v Soul Kwake-Ampomah for attempted robbery conviction

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1638
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of R v Soul Kwake-Ampomah ([2023] EWCA Crim 1638), the Court of Appeal heard an appeal limited to the challenge of a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) imposed on the appellant, Soul Kwake-Ampomah, subsequent to his recent conviction for attempted robbery. This article dissected the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal to scrutinize the legal principles invoked, pinpoint the crux of the judgment, and the rationale behind the court’s decision to dismiss the appeal.

Key Facts

Soul Kwake-Ampomah, a 19-year-old male, pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and was sentenced to 25 months’ detention in a young offender institution. Additionally, Kwake-Ampomah received a CBO barring him from congregating in a group of three or more people in a specified area of London’s West End, unless accompanied by family members. This stipulation was designated to last for three years.

The basis for the attempted robbery conviction involved an incident where Kwake-Ampomah and his co-accused targeted an undercover police officer, attempting to steal his gold Rolex watch. The appellant’s prior convictions included various offences such as being carried in a vehicle taken without consent, possessing cannabis, handling stolen goods, and possessing a hunting knife in public.

The Court applied Section 331(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 to determine whether a CBO was justifiable. According to this section, a CBO may be imposed if the offender has been engaged in behavior causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, and if the order could prevent future such behavior.

The ruling also referenced Rule 31.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence in CBO applications. This rule mandates that notices identify the individual who made the hearsay statement or explain the absence of such identification.

The appeal was chiefly predicated on the contention that the lower court improperly relied on anonymous hearsay evidence, which could neither be admitted nor given weight, and thus the CBO could not effectively prevent the appellant from engaging in behavior liable to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal concluded that the CBO met the criteria set out in s.331(2)(a) based solely on the attempted robbery. Considering the appellant’s criminal history and the nature of the offence, alongside the prevalence of similar crimes in the area where the offence occurred, the Court found that the CBO was a justifiable measure to deter him from future offences.

The appeal to remove the CBO was dismissed, judging that the trial judge was correct in his finding that the order would keep the appellant away from negative peer influences in a region with high temptation for acquisitional offending, thus helping prevent future instances of behavior causing societal harm.

Conclusion

The case of R v Soul Kwake-Ampomah reinforces the applicability of the Sentencing Act 2020 in determining the imposition of CBOs as a means to mitigate the risk of reoffending. This appeal also provides clarity on the role of hearsay in CBO applications, acknowledging that while police intelligence may be valuable in certain cases, it must be supported with concrete evidence to justify a CBO. The Court’s decision exemplifies the broader judicial effort to balance the reformation of the individual and the protection of public interest.