Hammond, R v

Where a Sexual Offences Prevention Order is imposed alongside notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, its duration should normally be consistent with the period of notification. Each prohibition must be proportionate and directed to preventing sexual offending. A condition allowing police access to computers which the offender owns or has access to may be proportionate where limiting it would permit evasion. However, a general prohibition on downloading material from the internet is too broad if it prevents ordinary lawful activity. A prohibition confined to downloading photographs or pseudo-photographs of persons under 18 may provide the necessary protection.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Luton Crown Court to four offences of making, and one offence of possessing, indecent photographs of children. He received community orders with supervision and a sex offender programme, and an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order made under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He appealed only against the order. He challenged its indefinite duration and the breadth of conditions permitting police access to computers and prohibiting internet downloads. The central issue was whether those terms were necessary and proportionate to prevent further sexual offending.

Disposition

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order was varied to a term of five years. Condition (iv), which prohibited all internet downloading other than for lawful employment or study, was quashed and replaced.

2. Where a Sexual Offences Prevention Order is imposed at the same time as notification requirements under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it will normally be important for the duration of the order to be consistent with the notification period. The notification requirements ran in parallel with the order. The indefinite order was therefore inconsistent with the appellant’s five-year notification period. A five-year order was appropriate, with the police able to seek an extension if later concerns arose.

3. The court rejected the challenge to condition (iii). A condition requiring the appellant not to refuse police access to a computer which he owned or had access to was neither disproportionate nor too wide. Limiting the condition to computers he owned would give him an obvious means of avoiding its effectiveness.

4. Condition (iv) was disproportionate. Its general terms prevented ordinary lawful uses of the internet, such as buying a train ticket or booking a holiday. The purpose of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order is to prevent sexual offending of the relevant kind, and its terms must be designed and proportionate to achieve that purpose. The substituted condition prohibited downloading photographs or pseudo-photographs of any person under 18.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal in part and varied the Sexual Offences Prevention Order.
• Luton Crown Court — On 15 February 2008 imposed community orders and an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order following guilty pleas to offences involving indecent photographs of children.