A sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of two years was appropriate in the case of an adult male who had pleaded guilty to attempting to foster an inappropriate relationship with an 11-year-old girl over internet.
It was inappropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.225 on an offender convicted of making indecent photographs of children, because the link between the offending act of downloading images and the possible harm to children was too remote to satisfy the requirement that the […]
The judge had erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection in respect of the appellant’s sexual assault of a child under the girl of 13; repetitive violent or sexual offending at a relatively low level without serious harm did not of itself give rise to a significant risk of serious […]
A sentence of imprisonment for public protection following an offender’s conviction for making indecent photographs of children was unreasonable where on the facts there was no significant risk of his causing serious harm to others. A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was substituted.
The defendant, who had kissed a 20-year-old man with learning difficulties without consent, did not pose a significant risk of serious harm; therefore a term of imprisonment for public protection was inappropriate.
The court considered and gave guidance on the principles applicable to the new mandatory sentencing provisions for the protection of the public from dangerous offenders contained in Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.224 to s.229 and the factors that judges should take into account when deciding whether one of the new sentences must be imposed.
