Held, application refused. The passing of time had been within the judge’s contemplation when she imposed the serious crime prevention order and so could not constitute a “change of circumstances” for the purposes of section 18(3) of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Parliament could not have intended that the order be affected solely by the passing of time which would undermine the authority of the judge’s decision to impose an order for five years. In any case, a challenge to the duration of the order had to be made to the Court of Appeal and a request to discharge an order on the basis of passing of time amounted to an illegitimate collateral attack. The simple expression of an intention to relocate permanently away from the United Kingdom was not the sort of circumstance that Parliament intended to affect the order, otherwise the announcement of such an intention would defeat the order and prevent the court from analysing the applicant’s conduct since the order had been imposed. While there might be barriers to enforcement of the order while the applicant was abroad, the order was neither too vague nor too unclear to be enforceable within the jurisdiction. On the facts, it was too early to determine whether the applicant would in fact sever his ties with the United Kingdom and the applicant retained family links to Wales. There was also no reason to suppose that the order posed a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or the common law (paras 59–60, 63–65, 70–71).

Per curiam. (i) A challenge to the imposition of a serious crime prevention order should be made to the Court of Appeal under section 24 of the 2007 Act. The statutory scheme for discharge under section 18 of the 2007 Act is not designed to circumvent the appellate process by allowing collateral attacks to be made against the imposition of the order (paras 57–58).

(ii) Given the international reach and cross-border nature of serious crime, it would be surprising if Parliament did not intend the statutory scheme under the 2007 Act to extend to conduct abroad (para 68).

(iii) On an application for discharge, the Crown Court’s reasons for making the serious crime prevention order are important, as it marks the baseline from which a change of circumstances will be assessed. The applicant should obtain a transcript of the reasons for imposing the order. If the applicant does not have the means or ability to do so, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the correct respondent, should assist the court by obtaining a transcript (paras 74, 75).