No: 200901590/A3 
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Crim 2165
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 
 
Monday, 5th October 2009
 
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE MOSES

MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW 
 
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROOK QC 
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

v 

KELLY WILLIAMS 
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M Corrie appeared on behalf of the Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	 MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW:  On 4th March 2008 in the Crown Court at Croydon, following her earlier plea of guilty to an offence of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of a Class A controlled drug, namely cocaine, contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, Kelly Williams was sentenced by His Honour Judge Waller to 8 years' imprisonment.  He also imposed a 2 year travel restriction order under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.  She appeals against only the travel restriction order by leave of the single judge.
2.	The facts are as follows.  On 21st October 2008 the appellant was stopped by customs officers as she passed through the Green Channel at Gatwick airport having arrived on a flight from a Trinidad.  Her suitcases were searched.  Hidden ingeniously in the metal frames there was a total of 2.21 kilogrammes of cocaine, at 70 per cent purity, with a street value of £186,000.  
3.	When interviewed the appellant denied any knowledge of the drugs but, as we have already said, later she pleaded guilty. 
4.	The appellant was aged 23.  She is a United Kingdom national married to a Jamaican living in Jamaica.  She has had one conviction for robbery in 2001, for which she was sentenced to an 18 month detention and training order. The judge in his sentencing remarks said that after a trial the sentence would have been 12 years' imprisonment, taking account of her plea the sentence he passed was 8 years' imprisonment.  The judge also imposed a travel restriction order made for 2 years after her release.  In dealing with that, he said merely this:  
"I make a travel restriction order for two years.  That means for two years after your release you will not be allowed to travel abroad." 
5.	The appeal is directed only against the travel restriction order.  It is argued that the risk of re‑offending on release was not sufficient to justify a travel restriction order.  Further, it is said that insufficient regard was had to the effect of the order, taking into account the fact that her husband was a Jamaican national living in Jamaica.  
6.	Travel restriction orders were introduced by section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.  If a person is sentenced for a drugs trafficking offence to 4 years' imprisonment or more, it is the duty of the court to consider whether it would be appropriate to make a travel restriction order prohibiting the offender from travelling abroad.  If an order is not made the court must give its reasons.  It is true that there is no statutory requirement that a judge making such an order should state his reasons but it seems to us to be good sentencing practice that judges should always give reasons for the orders which they make.  Valuable guidance was given by Newman J, giving the judgment of this court in case of R v Mee [2004] EWCA Crim 629, in which he set out detailed considerations which the court should have in mind.  He said that the section conferred upon the court a broad discretion, which must be exercised proportionately, in so far as it is appropriate to do so to reduce the risk of the defendant re‑offending after release from prison.
7.	In our judgment the imposition of the order imposing a travel restriction and the term to which it is to run requires a sharp focus on the facts of the case, and an assessment of the risk of reoffending of the particular defendant, after her discharge from prison, in this case having served a very long sentence.  That is to be balanced against the adverse consequence of the order upon the defendant and her family life.  The judge did not here undertake such an analysis.  He found that she was a courier, but he did not make any finding of the risk of reoffending particularly after release from such a sentence.  He did not suggest any reason for thinking that she would, or even could, again be selected as a courier.  Furthermore, there was no detailed evidence based assessment of the impact upon her family life of being unable to visit her husband in Jamaica.  For these reasons we think the travel restriction order must be quashed.  To that extent the appeal is allowed.