Court of Appeal clarifies test for determining the duration of civil orders

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that determining the duration of a civil order is itself a specific, separate assessment that applies the tests of necessity and proportionality.

The Court (Andrews LJ, Picken J and HHJ Lloyd-Clarke) held that if the underlying offending triggered separate statutory notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the length of the civil order was not to automatically match the notification period, rather the notification period was just one factor in assessing what was necessary and proportionate.

This appeal dealt with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order set for a period of 10 years to follow the notification requirement. The Court granted the appeal in full and held that duration of the order was both an error of law and manifestly excessive; it substituted the period for the minimum statutory duration of 5 years.

Charlotte Branfield, instructed by Landmark Law Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Appellant at sentence and appeal. The judgment can be accessed here.

23rd April 2026