Wiles, R. v

For the purpose of a child-disqualification order, a qualifying sentence of imprisonment includes the whole term of an extended sentence. It is not confined to the custodial term. Under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the extension period is part of the sentence of imprisonment or detention.

Accordingly, where the aggregate extended sentence meets the statutory threshold, the court must make an order under section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 unless satisfied that further offending against a child is unlikely. A later licence condition imposed by the probation service does not render a properly imposed extension period wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to an indecent assault on a 14-year-old girl and to ten counts of possessing indecent pseudo-photographs of children. Judge Badley imposed an extended sentence comprising six months' custody and an 18-month extension period. She also disqualified him from working with children and required sex-offender registration.

With leave of the Single Judge, the appellant challenged the child-disqualification order and the length of the extension period. The central issues were whether the two-year extended sentence was a qualifying sentence for the disqualification order, and whether later restrictions imposed under his licence made the extension period excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The child-disqualification order and the 18-month extension period were lawful and neither was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

2. Section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 required the Crown Court to disqualify an adult convicted of the relevant offence against a child if a qualifying sentence had been imposed, unless it was satisfied that further offending against a child was unlikely. The appellant's offence was within Schedule 4 and the Crown Court was a senior court.

3. The extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was a qualifying sentence. Section 76 required “custodial sentence” to mean a sentence of imprisonment or detention. Read accordingly, section 85 made the term of imprisonment or detention the aggregate of the custodial term and the extension period. The relevant sentence was therefore two years, rather than six months. The judge had no basis for finding further offending against a child unlikely, so the section 28 order was both mandatory and lawful.

4. The court declined to accept the contrary construction in R v Graham S [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 335. That decision had overlooked the applicable statutory definition and its conclusion was made per incuriam.

5. The statutory conditions for an extended sentence were met. The appellant presented a medium risk of reoffending, lacked insight into the harm caused, and refused the relevant programme. A restrictive residence condition subsequently imposed by the probation service did not invalidate the sentence. Any request to relax or modify that condition had to be made to the probation service. The resulting registration period was ten years, as an automatic consequence of the sentence rather than an increase in it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against the child-disqualification order and the extension period of the extended sentence.
• Crown Court Judge Badley imposed a six-month custodial term with an 18-month extension period, a child-disqualification order, and concurrent imprisonment for possession offences.