For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed.  This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody. This will avoid a driving ban expiring, or being significantly diminished, during the period the offender is in custody (s 30 Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015). Periods of time spent on remand or subject to an electronically monitored curfew are ignored.

Where a rehabilitation course is completed, any extension period is disregarded when reducing the ban.

For example where a court imposes a 6 month custodial sentence and a disqualification period of 12 months, the ban will be extended to 15 months. Where a rehabilitation course is completed, the reduction will remain at a maximum of 3 months.

Consult your legal adviser for assistance.  

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

The court has the power to bind an individual over to keep the peace (Justices of the Peace Act 1361, Justices of the Peace Act 1968, s.1(7), Magistrates Courts Act 1980, s.115). The order is designed to prevent future misconduct and requires the individual to promise to pay a specified sum if the terms of the order are breached. Exercise of the power does not depend upon conviction. Guidance on the making of binding over orders is set out in the Criminal Practice Directions VII: Sentencing (external website, link will not work if you are offline).

Key principles include:

1. before imposing the order, the court must be satisfied so that it is sure that a breach of the peace involving violence or an imminent threat of violence has occurred, or that there is a real risk of violence in the future. The court should hear evidence and the parties before making any order;
2. the court should state its reasons for making the order;
3. the order should identify the specific conduct or activity from which the individual must refrain, the length of the order and the amount of the recognisance;
4. the length of the order should be proportionate to the harm sought to be avoided and should not generally exceed 12 months;
5. when fixing the amount of the recognisance, the court should have regard to the individual’s financial resources.

These have now been replaced by Criminal Behaviour Orders 

These have now been replaced by Criminal Behaviour Orders.

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

See Step 6 of the relevant guideline for dangerous dog offences:

• Breeding, selling, exchanging or advertising a prohibited dog, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.1(7)
• Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in any place in England and Wales (whether or not a public place), Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.3(1)
• Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in any place in England and Wales (whether or not a public place) where a person is injured, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.3(1)
• Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in any place in England and Wales (whether or not a public place) where an assistance dog is injured or killed, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.3(1)
• Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in any place in England and Wales (whether or not a public place) where death is caused, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.3(1)
• Possession of a prohibited dog, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.1(7)

 

 

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 empowers the court to disqualify an offender from being a director or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company for up to five years.

An order may be made in two situations:

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 (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).

Confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may only be made by the Crown Court. An offender convicted of an offence in a magistrates’ court must be committed to the Crown Court where this is requested by the prosecution with a view to a confiscation order being considered (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.70). If the committal is made in respect of an either way offence, the court must state whether it would have committed the offender to the Crown Court for sentencing had the issue of a confiscation order not arisen.

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

Where an offender is convicted of one of the following offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the court may disqualify the offender from owning or keeping animals; from participating in the keeping of animals; from being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept; from dealing in animals; and/or from transporting or arranging the transport of animals (Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.34):

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

The purpose of a disqualification order is to protect the future welfare of animals. The court must carry out a risk assessment based on the facts of the case to determine whether a disqualification order is necessary and the appropriate time period of that order. When considering making a disqualification order the court can have regard to previous convictions.

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

The court is required to give reasons if it decides not to make such an order.

The court may specify the minimum period before an offender may apply for termination of the order under section 43 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006; if no period is specified, an offender may not apply for termination of the order until one year after the order was made.

As set out in s.34(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, disqualification may be imposed instead of or in addition to dealing with the offender in any other way. The court should consider whether the purposes of sentencing are met when deciding whether to impose the disqualification order as a standalone sentence.

Where an offender is convicted of an offence contrary to s.4-9 under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and is the owner of an animal in relation to which the offence is committed, the court may also make an order depriving him or her of ownership of the animal and for its disposal (Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.33).

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

Where an offender convicted of one of the following offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, is the owner of an animal in relation to which the offence is committed, the court may make an order depriving the offender of ownership of the animal and for its disposal (Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.33).

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

The court is required to give reasons if it decides not to make such an order.

As set out in ss.33(1) and 33(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, deprivation of ownership may be imposed instead of or in addition to dealing with the offender in any other way. The court should consider whether the purposes of sentencing are met when deciding whether to impose the deprivation order as a standalone sentence.

Where an offender is convicted of any of the offences listed above, the court may also disqualify him or her from owning or keeping animals, dealing in animals, and/or transporting animals (Animal Welfare Act 2006, s.34).

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

The court may make an exclusion order where an offender has been convicted of an offence committed on licensed premises involving the use or threat of violence (Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980).

The order prohibits the offender from entering specified licensed premises without the consent of the licensee. The term of the order must be between three months and two years.