• an offence under section 1 (dogs bred for fighting)
• an offence under section 3(1) (keeping dogs under proper control), or
• an offence created by an order under section 2 (other specifically dangerous dogs)

the court may order the offender to be disqualified for having custody of a dog.

1.    Where an offender has been convicted of an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management, liquidation or striking off of a company, with the receivership of a company’s property or with his being an administrative receiver of a company (Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, s.2) or

2.    Where an offender has been convicted of an offence involving a failure to file documents with, or give notice to, the registrar of companies. If the offence is triable only summarily, disqualification can be ordered only where the offender has been the subject of three default orders or convictions in the preceding five years (Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, s.5)

The period should be fixed by reference to the charges alleged and made out against the director.

Disqualification periods of 10 years and over should only be imposed in particularly serious cases such as a second disqualification.

Disqualification periods of six to 10 years apply to serious cases.

Disqualification periods of up to five years are appropriate in less serious cases.

In assessing seriousness, relevant considerations may include:

• whether the failures came about deliberately or with knowledge of their potential result and the harm they would cause, or through lack of knowledge or incompetence, and
• whether the failures were “one off” or part of a pattern.

The length of the order should not be subject to a guilty plea discount, but factors such as previous good character and a plea of guilty may be relevant considerations in determining the level of seriousness.

Where a disqualification order is made against a person who is already subject to such an order, the periods specified in those orders shall run concurrently.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the period of disqualification will begin at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the order. (Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, s.1(2))

Crown Court – 15 years

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 4A

• an offence under section 1 (dogs bred for fighting);
• an offence under section 3(1) (keeping dogs under proper control); or
• an offence created by an order under section 2 (other specifically dangerous dogs)

The court shall order the destruction of any dog in respect of which an offence under section 1 or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) (injury caused) was committed, unless the court is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

The court may order the destruction of any dog in respect of which an offence under section 1 or 3(1) was committed, or an offence under an order made under section 2 was committed.

• the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and
• whether the owner of the dog, or the person for the time being in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog,

and may consider any other relevant circumstances.

Fit and proper person:

In determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to be in charge of a dog the following non-exhaustive factors may be relevant:

• any relevant previous convictions, cautions or penalty notices;
• the nature and suitability of the premises that the dog is to be kept at by the person;
• where the police have released the dog pending the court’s decision whether the person has breached conditions imposed by the police; and
• any relevant previous breaches of court orders.

In any case where the offender is not the owner of the dog, the owner must be given an opportunity to be present and make representations to the court

• Where the offender was convicted of an offence under:
  • section 1 (dogs bred for fighting) and the dog is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3); or
  • an aggravated offence under section 3(1) (injury caused)

and the court does not order the destruction of the dog, the court shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from that prohibition within 2 months (which can be extended), the dog shall be destroyed.

• Where the offender was convicted of an offence under section 3(1) (keeping dogs under proper control), the court may order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed. The Court may:
  • specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; and
  • if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered, may require it to be neutered.

• appoint a person to undertake the destruction of the dog; and
• require any person having custody of it to deliver it up for that purpose; and
• order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine to be the reasonable expenses of destroying the dog and of keeping it pending its destruction.

Any sum ordered to be paid shall be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.

Facilitating the commission of the offence includes any steps taken to, either dispose of any property relating to the offence or avoid apprehension or detection.

• driving; attempting to drive, or being in charge of a vehicle,
• failing to provide a specimen or give permission for such a test in the course of an investigation into whether they had committed an offence while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle. Road Traffic Act 1988 section 7 or 7A, or
• failing, as the driver of a vehicle, to stop and give information or report an accident. Road Traffic Act 1988, section 170(2) and (3).

Those offences are:

• an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is punishable with imprisonment
• an offence of manslaughter
• an offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wanton and furious driving).

If the court considers that the offence related to immigration or asylum, or was committed for a purpose in connection with immigration or asylum, it may order that the property is to be taken into the possession of the Secretary of State.

The order

• prohibits the offender from doing anything described in the order, and/or
• requires the offender to do anything described in the order.

• the person has been convicted of an offence
• the prosecutor has made an application to the court for a CBO to be made against the offender
• the CBO would be made in addition to dealing with the offender for the offence, and
• the offender has not been absolutely discharged in respect of the offence.

(Sentencing Code, s331(1) – (3))

For special considerations where the application for a CBO is made against an offender aged under 18, see below.

For the power to adjourn an application for a CBO until after the offender has been sentenced for the offence (and to make an interim order during the adjournment), see below.

• is satisfied that the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, and
• considers that making the order will help in preventing the offender from engaging in such behaviour.

(Sentencing Code, s331(2)).

The behaviour to be addressed does not need to be connected to the criminal behaviour, or activity which led to the conviction. However, if there is no link the court will need to reflect on the reasons for making the order.

A CBO can deal with a wide range of anti-social behaviour following the offender’s conviction, for example threatening violence against others in the community, or persistently being drunk and aggressive in public. However, the order should not be designed to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, or are not likely to cause anti-social behaviour.

The standard of proof is the criminal standard.

For this purpose, evidence may be led by the prosecution and/or the offender.

The strict rules of evidence do not apply.  It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted. But the evidence must be relevant to the test to be applied to the making of the order. This evidence could include hearsay or bad character.

Special measures are available for witnesses who are vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in accordance with the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Sentencing Code, s340).

• proportionate, reasonable and tailored to the specific needs of each offender
• realistic, practical and precise
• capable of being understood by the offender, and
• sufficiently clear so that any breach can be prosecuted.

A CBO should not prohibit particular conduct which itself constitutes a criminal offence where the purpose of the order is to provide for an increased penalty in the event of repetition in breach of the order.

Prohibitions and requirements in a CBO must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—

• any interference with the times, if any, at which the offender normally works or attends school or any other educational establishment, and
•  any conflict with the requirements of any other court order to which the offender may be subject.

There is no power to make any prohibition or requirement in a CBO subject to electronic monitoring.

The court must also receive evidence about its suitability and enforceability from that individual or an individual representing the organisation.

If the criminal behaviour order includes two or more requirements, the court must consider their compatibility with each other.

Where the offender is an adult (when the order is made), the order must be for either a fixed period of not less than 2 years, or an indefinite period (so that the order has effect until further order).

See below as to the duration of a CBO made against a child.

The order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.

Duty to obtain views of Youth Justice Services

The prosecution must find out the views of the local youth offending team before applying for a criminal behaviour order. (Sentencing Act 2020, s.331(5)).

Length of the CBO

The order must be for a fixed period of length between 1 and 3 years. (Sentencing Act 2020, s.334(4)).

Parenting order on making of CBO

Where the court has made a CBO against an offender aged under 16, it must make a parenting order if doing so would be desirable in the interests of preventing any repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the CBO being made.

The court may make a parenting order in the case on offender aged 16 or 17 where that condition is fulfilled

(Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ss.8 and 9).

If the offender fails to appear on the adjourned date, the court has powers to issue a warrant or proceed in absence.

The court can make an interim order if the it thinks it is just to do so. An interim order can be made until final hearing or further order.

When making an interim CBO, the court has the same powers as if it were making a final order.

Breach of a criminal behaviour order guideline.

2.    Where, following conviction in a magistrates’ court, the prosecutor applies for the offender to be committed to the Crown Court with a view to a confiscation order being considered, the magistrates’ court must commit the offender to the Crown Court to be sentenced there (section 70 POCA).

3.    Where, but for the prosecutor’s application under s.70, the magistrates’ court would have committed the offender for sentence to the Crown Court anyway it must say so. Otherwise, the powers of sentence of the Crown Court will be limited to those of the magistrates’ court.

4.    If postponing confiscation, the court must adjourn all other financial orders, including compensation, costs and a fine (see section 15 of POCA). Confiscation must be dealt with before, and taken into account when assessing, any other fine or financial order (except compensation and trafficking reparation order (STRO) or unlawful profit order (UPO)). If the court makes both a confiscation order and an order for compensation (or STRO or UPO) and the court believes the offender will not have sufficient means to satisfy both orders in full, the court must direct that the compensation be paid out of sums recovered under the confiscation order. (See section 13 of POCA)

6.    Where an order is made following an agreement by the parties this should be recorded in the order and it is prudent to ensure that the offender signs the schedule of available or realisable assets. Where an order is made after a contested hearing, it will follow the court’s findings of fact.

2.    There is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed in respect of offences for an offender aged 18 or over. Compensation may also be ordered in respect of offences taken into consideration (Sentencing Code, s.139).

3.    If there are multiple victims who are to receive compensation, a separate compensation order must be made in relation to each offence. Where there are multiple offences against the same victim, one order for compensation can be made and attached to the most serious of those offences. The duty to give reasons also applies where compensation is awarded in respect of some offences but not all.

4.    Where the personal injury, loss or damage arises from a road accident, a compensation order may be made only if there is a conviction for an offence under the Theft Act 1968, or the offender is uninsured and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau will not cover the loss (Sentencing Code s. 136). Compensation can include loss of all or part of a victim’s no claims bonus.

6.    Compensation may be ordered for such amount as the court considers appropriate having regard to any evidence and any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. The court must also take into account the offender’s means (see also paragraphs 10 -12 below).

7.    Compensation should benefit, not inflict further harm on, the victim. Any financial recompense from the offender may cause distress. A victim may or may not want compensation from the offender and assumptions should not be made either way. The victim’s views are properly obtained through sensitive discussion by the police or witness care unit, when it can be explained that the offender’s ability to pay will ultimately determine whether, and how much, compensation is ordered and whether the compensation will be paid in one lump sum or by instalments. If the victim does not want compensation, this should be made known to the court and respected.

8.    In cases where it is difficult to ascertain the full amount of the loss suffered by the victim, consideration should be given to making a compensation order for an amount representing the agreed or likely loss. Where relevant information is not immediately available, it may be appropriate to grant an adjournment if it would enable it to be obtained. However, compensation orders are for straightforward cases and a court should not embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage – that is better left to civil proceedings, but the making of a compensation order does not preclude a victim from making a civil claim at a later date, subject to the Limitation Act 1980.

9.    The court should consider two types of loss:

• financial loss sustained as a result of the offence such as the cost of repairing damage or, in case of injury, any loss of earnings or medical expenses;
• pain and suffering caused (whether physical or psychological) and any interference with day to day activities. This should be assessed in light of all factors that appear to the court to be relevant, including any medical evidence, the victim’s age and personal circumstances.

10. Once the court has formed a preliminary view of the appropriate level of compensation, it must have regard to the means of the offender so far as they are known. Where the offender has little money, the order may have to be scaled down or additional time allowed to pay; the court may allow compensation to be paid over a period of up to three years in appropriate cases.

The collection order must state:

(a)  the amount of the sum due, including the amount of any fine, compensation order or other sum

(b)  whether the court considers the offender to be an existing defaulter and if so whether the existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded

(c)  whether the court has made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions

(d)  if the court has not made an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions, the payment terms

(e)  if an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions has been made, the reserve terms (in other words, the payment terms that will apply if the AEO or ABD fails). It will often be appropriate to set a reserve term of payment in full within 14 days.

Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003

• causing unnecessary suffering (s.4);
• mutilation (s.5);
• docking of dogs’ tails (ss.6(1) and 6(2));
• administration of poisons etc. (s.7);
• fighting etc. (s.8);
• breach of duty to ensure welfare (s.9);
• breach of licensing or registration requirements (s.13(6) and
• breach of a disqualification order (s.34(9))

The court may instead of, or in addition to, dealing with the offender in any other way, make a disqualification order.

• owning or keeping animals;
• participating in the keeping of animals;
• being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept;
• dealing in animals; and/or
• transporting or arranging the transport of animals.

In imposing a disqualification order the court can impose an all animals order involving a prohibition against owning or keeping etc any animal or an order limited to a certain type of animal. An order cannot specify a number of animals that can be kept etc.

Where any animal taken into possession is owned by the offender subject to the disqualification, the order has effect as an order for the disposal of the animal.

Any animal taken into possession who is not owned by the offender subject to the disqualification, should be dealt with in such manner as the court may order. The Court cannot make an order for its disposal unless the owner has had the opportunity to be heard, or the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with them.

In determining the length of the order, the court will consider:

• the circumstances of the offence
• the extent to which the offender is, and in the future is likely to be able to care for animals
• the extent of insight the offender has into the welfare of animals. Where the offender has no or limited insight a lengthy or lifetime ban may be appropriate

The court may also specify a period during which the offender may not make an application under section 43(1) for termination of the order.

Breach of disqualification from keeping an animal.

Animal Welfare Act, section 38

• causing unnecessary suffering (s.4);
• mutilation (s.5);
• docking of dogs’ tails (s.6(1) and 6(2));
• administration of poisons etc. (s.7);
• fighting etc. (s.8(1) and (2)) and
• breach of duty to ensure welfare (s.9)

may order the destruction of an animal in relation to which the offence was committed if it is satisfied, on the basis of evidence given by a veterinary surgeon, that it is appropriate to do so in the interests of the animal.

The court must give the owner of the animal an opportunity to be heard, unless it is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the owner.

The court must give the owner of the animal an opportunity to be heard, unless it is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the owner.

• appoint a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order;
• require a person who has possession of the animal to deliver it up to enable the order to be carried out;
• give directions with respect to the carrying out of the order (including directions about how the animal is to be dealt with until it is destroyed);
• confer additional powers (including power to enter premises where the animal is being kept) for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of the order;
• order the offender or another person to reimburse the expenses of carrying out the order.

• causing unnecessary suffering (s.4);
• mutilation (s.5);
• docking of dogs’ tails (ss.6(1) and 6(2));
• administration of poisons etc. (s.7);
• fighting etc. (s.8) and
• breach of duty to ensure welfare (s.9)

is the owner of an animal in relation to which the offence was committed, the court may, instead of or in addition to dealing with them in any other way, make an order depriving them of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by destruction.

Where the owner of an animal is convicted of breaching an animal disqualification order under section 34(2)  the court by or before which the offender is convicted may, instead of or in addition to dealing with them in any other way, make an order depriving them of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by destruction.

Where the animal in respect of which an order is made has any dependent offspring, the order may include provision depriving the person to whom it relates of ownership of the offspring and for its disposal, including by destruction.

• appoint a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order;
• require any person who has possession of an animal to which the order applies to deliver it up to enable the order to be carried out;
• give directions with respect to the carrying out of the order;
• confer additional powers (including power to enter premises where an animal to which the order applies is being kept) for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of the order;
• order the offender to reimburse the expenses of carrying out the order.

The order may also

• specify the manner in which an animal is to be disposed of, or
• delegate the decision about the manner in which an animal is to be disposed of to a person appointed.