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.
A total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was increased to 20 years where a judge had been wrongly advised that his sentencing powers in relation to offences of buggery committed when the offender was under 18 were limited to 12 months’ imprisonment.
A sentencing judge had no jurisdiction to vary a sentence once the time period in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.155 had expired. The case of R. v Saville (Peter Davies) [1981] Q.B. 12 provided no authority to the contrary.
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a senior police officer who had been convicted of a number of sexual offences against his wife and teenage boys. In a case of this nature, where the offending spanned a long period of time and where there had been significant changes in […]
It had not been reasonably open to a district judge to exercise his power of committal to the Crown Court for sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3C in respect of an 11-year-old boy who had pleaded guilty to child sex offences. Having accepted jurisdiction prior to the guilty pleas, further […]
In calculating the time to be served pursuant to an order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.116, justice required account to be taken of time spent in prison between recall to custody to serve the balance of a licence period for a previous offence and sentencing for a new offence committed […]
The court determined the correct approach to sentencing in respect of sexual offences committed many years ago but only recently brought to conviction.
A community order with a requirement to attend a sex offender’s programme and attend probation appointments for three years imposed on a 72-year-old offender who had pleaded guilty to six offences of indecent assault on females under 13, which had taken place up to 40 years previously, was not unduly lenient and a non-custodial sentence […]
A finding that a defendant did not pose a risk of serious harm to the public within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.229 did not preclude the court from imposing a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.104 on that defendant.
The court considered the proper method of sentencing where sample offences were charged and it was alleged that there had been multiple offending by the defendant.
