Compensation Orders
Courts have a discretionary power to impose a Compensation Order ancillary to any other sentencing disposal.
The imposition of Compensation Orders is governed by sections 133-135 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
Section 135(3)(b) states that the court must have regard to the offender’s financial means before making a Compensation Order, this is mandatory.
The Court of Appeal in R v York [2018] EWCA Crim 2754 confirmed six key principles to be applied by courts when considering the issue of compensation namely:
- The offender must give details of their financial means,
- The judge must enquire about and make clear findings about their financial means,
- Before making a Compensation Order, the court must take account of the offender’s financial means,
- Compensation should only be ordered if payment is realistic and within a reasonable time-period,
- Compensation should not be ordered where someone other than the offender is expected to pay such, &
- It would be wrong to make a Compensation Order without considering the amount of instalments and the period of time over which such instalments would be paid
In the recent case of R v ANZ [2025] EWCA Crim 778 the Court of Appeal were required to consider a Compensation Order in the sum of £10,000 to be paid at £400 per month.
The issue on appeal was that the sentencing judge failed to make enquiries with the appellant with regards to their financial means. As a result, a Compensation Order was made which was both wrong in law AND manifestly excessive.
Allowing the appeal, their Lordships applied sections 133-135 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and referred to the above said case of R v York [2018].
Their Lordships ruled that there’d been no inquiry regarding the appellant’s financial means prior to the making of a Compensation Order, which was wholly unrealistic, and so the order was quashed and set-aside.
For further details: