R v QX [2025] EWCA Crim 1463

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1463
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R E XCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEICESTER
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE DEAN KC [T20200269]
Case No 2025/02407/B3 Tuesday 21 October 2025
B e f o r e:
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
(Lord Justice Edis)
MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER
MS JUSTICE NORTON DBE
____________________
- v -
Between
Q X____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)___________________Miss C Oborne appeared for AppellantMiss E Gargitter appeared for Crown____________________J U D G M E N TDate 2025-10-21
[1]On 24 March 2021, in the Crown Court at Leicester, the appellant was convicted of three counts of breaking the requirements of a Temporary Exclusion Order, contrary to section 10(3) of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015. On the same day he was sentenced to a suspended sentence order. Further consequential financial orders were also made. He was ordered to pay a surcharge in the sum of £122 and prosecution costs in the sum of £1,000. We are told by Miss Oborne, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant this morning, that those sums have been paid.[2]The appellant now appeals against conviction, pursuant to Schedule 4 to the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015.[3]The statutory scheme giving rise to that right of appeal in Schedule 4 provides by paragraph 1 that an individual such as the appellant who has been convicted of an offence under section 10(3) may appeal against that conviction if the Temporary Exclusion Order is quashed and he could not have been convicted had the quashing occurred before the proceedings for the offence were brought.[4]By paragraph 2, such an appeal should be brought to the Court of Appeal, which is what has happened.[5]By paragraph 4(1), the Act provides:
"On an appeal under this Schedule to any court, that court must allow the appeal and quash the conviction."
[6]The statutory preconditions, therefore, for that obligation falling upon the court are: first, that there was a qualifying conviction – that, as we have already recorded, is made out; and second, that the Temporary Exclusion Order, which was the basis of that conviction, has been quashed – that, also, is made out.[7]On 16 June 2025, after very lengthy civil proceedings, which found their way ultimately to the Supreme Court, the Temporary Exclusion Order was quashed by consent. The proceedings in the Administrative Court which gave rise to that event were between the claimant and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Secretary of State for the Home Department agreed that the relevant order should be quashed ab initio, and one of the recitals to the order says:
"and upon the defendant accepting that as a result of the obligations being quashed ab initio, the convictions stand to be quashed if the claimant brings an appeal under the provisions of the 2015 Act."
[8]In those circumstances, the court has no choice as to what course it must take. Its obligation is to give effect to the quashing of the Exclusion Order ab initio by quashing convictions that were returned for breach of its provisions. We do so. We quash those convictions. In doing so, we make it clear that it is a consequence of that quashing that not only the suspended order which was imposed falls away, but also the consequential financial orders which were made are also quashed.[9]If, as Miss Oborne has told us, the appellant has paid those sums, then they must be returned to him by the appropriate authorities.[10]Finally, we should record that this appeal is brought in the name of "QX" because anonymity has been granted to the appellant in the context both of these appeal proceedings and in the context of the civil proceedings to which we have referred above. Nothing we say or do changes that position. The appellant is entitled to continued anonymity. ____________________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________