Shiers, R. v

An extended sentence and extended licence period will not be reduced as manifestly excessive where the offender’s persistent pattern of sexual offending and assessed risk of reoffending justify sustained supervision. The sentencing court must, however, identify the sentence to which the extended licence period attaches.

A Sexual Offences Prevention Order must be framed on an accurate factual basis. Where a prohibition proceeds on a factual error, the appellate court may vary it to define its proper scope.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a child and one offence of abducting a child. In the Crown Court, Judge Tabor imposed an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, comprising four years and six months’ imprisonment and a three-and-a-half-year extended licence period. He also made an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the order’s restriction concerning his biological children, its factual premise and its compatibility with family life. He also contended that the overall sentence and extended licence period were manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether the order required variation and whether the extended sentence was excessive or procedurally defective.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The court rejected the contention that the overall sentence or the three-and-a-half-year extended licence period was manifestly excessive.

2. The abduction was serious. The appellant had assumed responsibility for a vulnerable 13-year-old girl and his conduct caused her family a prolonged period of anxiety while they did not know that she was safe. The sentencing judge was entitled to reflect that seriousness in sentence.

3. The appellant’s fourth conviction for sexual intercourse with an underage girl, together with the pre-sentence assessment, demonstrated an enduring risk to young and vulnerable girls. The court accepted that intensive intervention and extended licence supervision were justified to address the risk of reoffending. The judge was therefore entitled to fix the extended licence period at three years and six months.

4. The judge erred by failing to specify the sentence to which the extended licence period attached. The court quashed the original sentences and substituted concurrent custodial terms of four years and six months on counts 1, 2, 3 and 10. The three-and-a-half-year extended licence period was attached to each concurrent sentence.

5. The fifth prohibition in the Sexual Offences Prevention Order rested on an incorrect premise that the appellant’s biological children were in social services’ care. It was deleted and replaced with a provision that the preceding paragraphs should not apply to a biological child unless a court ordered otherwise. The court did not determine the separate Article 8 contention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed to a limited extent: the extended sentence was retained but restructured, and the Sexual Offences Prevention Order was varied ([2006] EWCA Crim 181).
• Crown Court: Following guilty pleas to three offences of sexual activity with a child and one offence of abducting a child, Judge Tabor imposed an extended sentence and an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order.