Bowman, R. v

For a repeated failure to comply with notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, an immediate custodial sentence may be inevitable. Previous like offending and the public-protection purpose of the requirements are important aggravating features.

The sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate. In assessing its length, the court may take account of the practical and legal complexity arising where the offender has no fixed abode or has been homeless. A sentence that gives insufficient weight to those matters may be reduced on appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Croydon Crown Court to failing to notify a change of address as required by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He had left his registered address in April 2005, was homeless for part of the following period, and notified police of a new address in July 2005.

He had two previous convictions for the same notification offence. The Crown Court imposed six months’ imprisonment. By leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence on the basis that the term was excessive, particularly given the complications caused by his homelessness.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal substituted two months’ imprisonment for the six-month term imposed by the Crown Court.

1. The appellant had committed a third breach of the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He knew of his obligations and should have reported to the police promptly when his circumstances changed. The requirements served the serious purpose of protecting the public.

2. In light of the two earlier convictions for the same offence, custody was inevitable. A custodial term also had to exceed the seven-day sentence imposed for the first offence and be substantially greater than the financial penalty imposed for the second.

3. However, the court recognised that notification requirements could present complexities for a person without a fixed abode who had been homeless. Taking that circumstance, the guilty plea, the previous offending, and the public-protection purpose of the regime together, six months was too long. A sentence of two months was substituted.

4. The court left the precise date of release for determination by the responsible authorities.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2005] EWCA Crim 3612, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Following a guilty plea, imposed six months’ imprisonment for failing to notify a change of address.