IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION

The court set out guidance on factors to be considered when making sexual offences prevention orders alongside other sentences and in respect of computer and internet use, personal contact with children and occupations or activities which were likely to bring the defendant into contact with children.

A minimum term of five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence was reduced to four-and-a-half years, because it was disproportionate to the five-year starting point for an actual single offence of rape.

Convictions on charges of rape and living on prostitution brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were quashed where the indictment had alleged that the offences had occurred between dates straddling the entry into force of the Act, and there was no evidence to show under which statutory regime the offences had fallen.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed following a plea of guilty to sexual offences was upheld where, having regard to the facts of the case and the offender’s previous convictions, the judge had been justified in concluding that he posed a significant risk of causing serious personal injury. However, the specified minimum term of two years was modified to take into account time the offender had already spent in custody.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of three years and 172 days, imposed for two counts of rape, was upheld but the minimum term was reduced to two years and 172 days because the judge had not made a satisfactory reduction for the offender’s co-operation with the prosecution in an unconnected murder trial.

Offences committed by a young offender contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.13 were not serious specified offences for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

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 offender’s reoffending would cause serious harm.

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 harm in the future.

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.