Fowkes, R. v

Sentences for notification offences which constitute a single incident should ordinarily run concurrently. A court should depart from that general principle only where there is a reason to do so.

A later and prolonged failure to comply with notification requirements is a separate continuing offence. It may properly attract a distinct and significant consecutive sentence, particularly where the offender has deliberately avoided statutory monitoring and presents a serious risk to the public.

The appellant, a convicted rapist subject to statutory notification requirements, pleaded guilty at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court to failing to notify an address within time, providing a false address, and a later prolonged failure to provide his address.

He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The judge imposed consecutive terms of three, six and nine months’ imprisonment, totalling 18 months. He appealed on the basis that the sentences were wrong in principle and excessive, relying in part on R v Bowman [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 40.

The central issue was whether the three offences formed one incident requiring concurrent sentences, and whether the individual or total terms were excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The three-month sentence for the first notification offence and the six-month sentence for providing the false address should have run concurrently. The order that they run consecutively was quashed and replaced accordingly.

2. The first two offences were one incident. The false address was given in the course of the same failure to notify an address after release. It might arguably have been sufficient to charge one offence. The general sentencing principle therefore required concurrent sentences, and there was no reason to depart from it.

3. The third offence was materially different. It was a separate and continuing failure to provide an address, lasting nearly 18 months. It properly attracted a distinct and significant penalty.

4. R v Bowman [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 40 did not assist the appellant. In that case the failure to register was explained by homelessness. Here, the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant as having deliberately and flagrantly avoided notification and statutory monitoring.

5. Having regard to the appellant’s history, his assessed danger to women and young girls, the deliberate non-compliance, and the statutory maximum of five years, neither the individual sentences nor the resulting total was excessive. The final sentence was 15 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and varied the consecutive terms so that the first two terms ran concurrently.
• Crown Court: On 1 August 2007, Her Honour Judge Karu imposed consecutive terms of three, six and nine months’ imprisonment, totalling 18 months.
• Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court: On 2 July 2007, the appellant pleaded guilty to the three notification offences and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.