R v RICHARD HEWITT (2018)

Certain conditions of a sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender who had committed sexual offences against children, which restricted his use of computers, mobile phones with internet access and remote storage, were quashed as they were disproportionate, unenforceable and did not give effect to the statutory purpose.

Read More

R v G (2014)

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection, which had been unlawfully imposed following an offender’s guilty pleas to two offences of indecent assault committed before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.225 came into force, was quashed and replaced by an extended sentence.

Read More

C v WINCHESTER CROWN COURT (2014)

A recorder had erred in varying an order so that the identity of a young offender could be made public; he had given insufficient consideration to the public interest in the effective rehabilitation of the offender.

Read More

R (on the application of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS) (Claimant) v CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (Defendant) & (1) MG (2) CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (Interested Parties) (2013)

Despite a substantial delay in applying for judicial review, it was in the public interest to quash a court’s decision purporting to lift a sexual offender’s notification requirements. The court lacked power to make that order, and the grant of relief upheld the rule of law and ensured that all applications to life notification requirements […]

Read More

R v FOX ROSWELL (2012)

An extended sentence was reduced on appeal to less than 30 months even though the offender had already served the sentence. The judge had imposed the lengthy extension period in order for the defendant to attend a sex offender treatment programme, but had not intended the consequence that the defendant would remain on the sex […]

Read More

R v DANIEL MARK HEMSLEY (2010)

A sexual offences prevention order was quashed where its terms were impermissibly wide. Since breach of such an order was a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, it was essential that the order was clear on its face, capable of being complied with without unreasonable difficulty and/or the assistance of a […]

Read More