Odam, R. v

A conviction following a jury trial will not be disturbed merely because an appellant maintains innocence or relies on good character. There must be a sound legal basis, such as misdirection, procedural irregularity, or compelling fresh evidence bearing on the decisive issue.

For an exposure conviction, notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 arise only where the relevant community order was for at least 12 months. A community order containing an unpaid-work requirement ends when the work is completed. The court may correct a misleading sentencing statement about notification requirements, even though no appeal lies against those requirements.

The applicant was convicted, after a retrial in the Crown Court at Croydon, of exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The first jury had been unable to agree. He received a community order requiring 120 hours of unpaid work, but the sentencing judge stated that he would be subject to five years’ notification requirements.

He sought, out of time, to appeal against conviction. He challenged the jury’s assessment of the evidence and complained about his representation. The transcript of the summing-up was unavailable. The court also considered whether the completed unpaid-work requirement made the notification requirements inapplicable.

1. The application to extend time for an appeal against conviction was refused. The applicant’s complaints concerned the jury’s assessment of credibility, his innocent explanation, and evidence of good character. Those were matters for the jury. There was no misdirection, procedural irregularity, or compelling fresh evidence capable of making the conviction unsafe.

2. The court held that notification requirements did not apply. A person convicted of exposure under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is subject to those requirements only if sentenced to a community order of at least 12 months, under Schedule 3, paragraph 32.

3. By section 200(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a community order containing an unpaid-work requirement ends when the work is completed. The applicant completed the 120 hours on 23 October 2007. His order therefore lasted about four and a half months, rather than at least 12 months.

4. Consistently with Longworth [2006] UKHL 1, there was no right of appeal against notification requirements. Nevertheless, it was appropriate to correct the sentencing remarks because they had misstated the applicant’s legal position. The court recorded that he was not subject to notification requirements and directed that he receive a transcript at public expense for presentation to the police.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused an extension of time to appeal against conviction. It also held that the notification requirements stated at sentence did not apply.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Following a retrial, convicted the applicant of exposure on 7 March 2007. On 15 June 2007 it imposed a community order with 120 hours’ unpaid work and stated that notification requirements applied for five years.