Daly, R. v

For an offender who repeatedly and deliberately breaches sex-offender notification requirements, persistent defiance of court orders can justify a custodial sentence substantially greater than earlier short sentences. The sentence must nevertheless reflect the actual aggravating features. In the absence of evidence that non-compliance was intended to conceal the offender’s whereabouts so as to facilitate further crime, a sentence at the top of the available range is excessive.

The appellant, who had a rape conviction and was subject to notification requirements, repeatedly failed to notify the police of his address after release from custody. He had prior convictions for similar failures and a wider history of non-compliance with bail, community orders and other court orders.

He pleaded guilty in the Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and was committed to the Crown Court at Wood Green, which imposed three years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The central issue was the proper custodial sentence for deliberate and repeated non-compliance where there was no evidence of an intention to conceal his whereabouts to facilitate further offending.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of substituting 18 months’ imprisonment for three years. The Court accepted that the appellant’s repeated failures to comply with notification obligations, together with his breaches of bail and community orders, demonstrated a deliberate policy of disobeying court orders.
2. The notification regime served public protection. Repeated deliberate non-compliance by a person convicted of rape was therefore serious and could not be explained by temporary personal difficulties or a chaotic lifestyle. Given the persistence of the offending, a sentence substantially longer than the previous sentences of three and four months was inevitable.
3. However, the three-year sentence was excessive. There was no evidence that the appellant had failed to notify the authorities in order to conceal his whereabouts and facilitate further offending. Such an intention would be a serious aggravating feature and could justify a sentence towards the top of the appropriate range.
4. Balancing the persistent and deliberate disobedience against the absence of that further aggravating feature, the appropriate sentence was 18 months’ imprisonment. The existing direction that 48 days spent on remand count towards sentence remained in place.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal allowed to the extent of substituting 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 24 November 2006, imposed three years’ imprisonment after committal for sentence.
• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty on 7 October 2006 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.