Compensation Orders

The court has the power to award compensation to any person who has suffered injury, loss or damage as a result of being the victim of crime.

In today's article I give a quick overview of the use of compensation orders in the Magistrates' Court. The imposition of compensation orders is governed by part 7, chapter 2 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Sentencing Council has published a table of suggested compensation starting points for lower level physical and mental injuries. However, as the court is legally obliged to consider an offender's means, the level of compensation awarded by the court is invariably much less than that shown in the table.

From a personal point of view, I have to say that I find the rules largely unsatisfactory.

As far as I am concerned, if an offender causes £1000 worth of injury, loss or damage, then they should pay £1000 in compensation. However, the reality is not like that - because unlike in civil proceedings, the criminal court is legally obliged to consider the offender's means.

This means that an offender might cause significant loss to their victim, but because they haven't got two ha'pennies to rub together (at least, so they claim) they might never need to fully compensate them.

A compensation order can either be imposed as a standalone sentence, in which case there is no associated surcharge, or as an ancilliary order to any other sentence imposed by the court.

Particular consideration needs to be given to the imposition of a standalone compensation order. Imposing such an order effectively means the offender is escaping any punishment apart from having to pay what they rightfully owe.

If the offender is of limited means, then compensation takes priority over the imposition of any fine, surcharge or prosecution costs.

The court should consider compensation in every case where there is loss, injury or damage. However, it is not always appropriate to award compensation - e.g. if the offence is very old; has already been covered by an insurance payment; the victim indicates they want a clean break from the offender.

If the court decides against awarding compensation, then it must give its reasons for doing so.

The majority of offenders are unable to immediately settle their financial obligations to the court. That being the case, the court will usually offer payment terms so that the balance can be paid over the course of a year. In exceptional circumstances, the court might allow repayment over a longer period of time, usually up to an absolute maximum of 3 years.

For example, you might have a vandal who has caused £1000 worth of damage to shop windows, but their only (official) source of income is benefits. They cannot afford to pay £1000 immediately, so the court would usually agree to payment by instalment.

You might remember from my earlier Fine Levels and Bands article that a person in receipt of benefits is assumed to have a relevant weekly income of £120. On that level of income it is assumed they can afford to pay £20 a month to the court. This means they could pay a maximum of £720 in compensation (£20 per month, for 36 months), if the court was prepared to allow repayment over the maximum of 3 years.

In this case the court would make a compensation order of £720, which the owner of the shop windows would receive in dribs and drabs over the next 3 years. Of course the tradesperson who replaced the broken windows would want full payment within 28 days of invoice. As for the £280 shortfall, well that's just tough luck.

In reality, most offenders before the court already owe a considerable sum for other offences. Despite committing their crimes, they may never pay off what they owe already. Anyone in the queue for compensation will just need to wait patiently to receive a payment that may never arrive.

As I said earlier, I find the rules largely unsatisfactory. More needs to be done to get compensatees their cash and much quicker. The trouble is that if you squeeze the offender too tightly for payment, they might be driven to further crime in order to fund it.

Man Prosecuted for Removing Deer Carcass from Central Reservation

A North Yorkshire man has been prosecuted for removing a deer carcass from the A66.

Guy Carpenter, 42, of Dalton, was travelling on the dual carriageway near to Barnard Castle when he noticed the fallen beast on the central reservation.

He had pulled over to retrieve the carcass, when passing police officers took an interest in his actions.

The 42-year-old church magazine editor reckoned that even if the meat was no good, he'd still be doing a public service by removing the remains from the roadside.

For his trouble he is now being prosecuted for an offence under section 1 of the Deer Act 1991, which prohibits the removal of a deer carcass from land without the owner or occupier's consent or other lawful authority.

The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 (£2,500) and/or 3 months' custody.

Speaking of the incident, which took place on 7th June 2026, Mr Carpenter said: "I picked up the deer, put it on my back, and went to cross back over and a police car came whizzing towards me with blue lights on.

"They stopped the car really abruptly. They pulled in front of me and said: 'What are you doing?'"

Mr Carpenter told the officers of his plan to salvage the carcass and make good use of it at home.

A few weeks later he received a summons to answer the allegation at Peterlee Magistrates' Court. The first hearing was listed for 7th September 2026.

Mr Carpenter told The Northern Echo: "When the notice dropped, my response was immediate panic.

"I have been hoping that sense might prevail and police might say they are dropping it.

"A dead animal on the road would be seen as a liability, rather than an asset, to anyone.

"I am a perfectly responsible, decent, law-abiding member of society. It completely undermines your faith in the justice system. Everyone I have told about it has been very supportive."

The case was adjourned in the hope that an out of court resolution can be achieved before the next hearing on 26th October 2026.

Technically speaking, as the carcass lies on National Highways land it is the property of the Crown. Practically speaking, it is of no value or benefit to anyone but Mr Carpenter.

The deputy leader of Durham County Council, Councillor Darren Grimes, has waded into the argument by questioning the public interest in taking the matter to court.

I have to say, based on events as reported, I am in agreement. I consider there to be negligible public interest in pursuing this matter. At most, the officers on the day should have given a few words of advice.

I can only surmise that they might have taken objection to the manner in which Mr Carpenter had parked his car or was seen moving about the highway. The road in question is a clearway.

While it is conceivable that National Highways may have located and removed the carcass by itself, it would only have ended up rotting away in a skip.

At least Mr Carpenter could put the remains to some use, so there was some good to come of the creature's demise.

There are plenty of shop thieves, drink drivers and drunken thugs the court could be dealing with instead of this.

Algerian Thief Has Last Laugh After Swiping Cash

An Algerian thief laughed at the sentence he received for swiping a woman's cash.

Djamal Sayah, 38, of Market Street, Paddock, Huddersfield, admitted an offence of theft when he appeared at Kirklees Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 2nd September 2026.

Theft is an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentence for theft is 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment, 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

Magistrates heard that Sayah, who has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK, committed the offence when he was in the HSBC bank in Huddersfield town centre.

A fellow customer was counting cash, when quick as a flash Sayah swiped the notes from under her nose.

The 38-year-old crook then ran off into the distance, but was arrested by the police a short time later. He told officers: "I find money on table - there was no violence".

Sayah has been no stranger to the courts during his 15-year residence in the UK. He was released from custody in November, having been imprisoned for possession of a bladed article. He also has a string of shop thefts to his name.

Jonathan Slawinski, mitigating, told the court that his client felt "embarrassed and ashamed" at his most recent offence.

Mr Slawinski said that Sayah had struggled with work and accommodation since his release from prison. He was claiming benefits and has done "cash in hand" work. The stolen £100 was spent on food and rent.

Magistrates elected to step outside of their guidelines and impose a £100 standalone compensation order, which does not attract the statutory surcharge.

Addressing Sayah, the Presiding Justice said: "We are taking a lenient view of this. We are giving credit for your guilty plea and your personal circumstances."

The 38-year-old laughed and was told "it's not to be laughed at".

Given the information available, I cannot imagine reaching a similar view. A conditional discharge could have easily been added on top, which would at least hang over Sayah's head and give more teeth to the next court if he were to reoffend (which is entirely likely).

A standalone compensation order is a perfectly valid sentencing option, but should be imposed with caution as it effectively means the offender escapes punishment - e.g. they only pay back what they legitimately owe, having cost the public purse a fortune in the process.

"We are taking a lenient view of this" is a clumsy comment and one that should be avoided.

The last thing the public wants to hear is about the court being lenient towards a serial thief - a serial thief who committed a very brazen crime and clearly shows very little remorse.

Better to say something along the lines of "the law requires us to consider your financial circumstances, which is why we impose the sentence we do".

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Norfolk Head Teacher Accused of Harassment

A former Norfolk head teacher has appeared in court accused of harassing a senior local authority official.

Gregory Lawrence Hill, commonly known as Greg Hill, 51, of Valley Way, Fakenham, denied harassment when he appeared at King's Lynn Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 20th August 2026.

Hill was formerly head teacher of Howard Junior School, Gaywood, but left under somewhat of a cloud (see previous articles).

It is alleged that between 22nd June 2025 and 20th January 2026 he pursued a course of conduct that amounted to the harassment of Helen Wardale, the Head of Children's Services at Norfolk County Council.

Hill is accused of making multiple social media posts about Ms Wardale and visiting her place of work.

Denying the offence, he told the court: "I am pleading not guilty as God is my witness."

Having entered his plea, Hill exited the court building rather swiftly. He was photographed running down the road in an apparent effort to avoid members of the press.

Hill, who used to be a special constable, is a regular contributor to the comments on Magistrates' Blog. That being the case stay tuned for updates straight from the horse's mouth.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.