F, R. v

A sentencing court should impose the sentence warranted by the offence and should not reduce an otherwise proper sentence merely to shorten the statutory notification period. An incompatibility with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, arising from indefinite notification without an opportunity for review, does not itself require a sentence below the threshold for indefinite notification. In particular, the conclusion that indefinite notification is disproportionate for a child without review does not establish that a five-year notification period is the proper outcome.

The appellant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of serious sexual offences against a child. He was 11 when the offences were committed and 13 when sentenced to concurrent terms of 30 months’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The sentence caused the notification requirements in Part II of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to apply indefinitely. An earlier appeal against sentence had been dismissed. The Criminal Cases Review Commission then referred the case under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

A related Divisional Court judicial-review judgment had concluded that indefinite notification without a review mechanism was incompatible with Article 8, particularly for children. The issue was whether that consequence required the Court of Appeal to reduce an otherwise appropriate 30-month sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences of 30 months’ detention were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The seriousness of the offences, the appellant’s initial denial, and the assessed risk at the time of sentence supported that conclusion.

2. The court followed the principle in Attorney General’s Reference No. 50 of 1997 [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 155, subsequently applied in R v H [2007] EWCA Crim 2622. A court should not reduce a proper sentence merely to restrict the offender’s statutory obligation to register or notify. The sentencing court determines the appropriate sentence; Parliament determines the notification consequences, which are not a penalty in the strict sense.

3. The related Divisional Court decision established that Article 8 was engaged by notification requirements. The substantial difference between five years’ notification for a sentence below 30 months and indefinite notification for a sentence of 30 months or more was disproportionate because there was no opportunity to show that notification was no longer justified by risk.

4. That conclusion did not mean that five years’ notification was the appropriate consequence in this case. It required an opportunity for review, not an adjustment of a proper sentence to avoid the indefinite-notification threshold. The Article 8 incompatibility therefore did not compel a reduction in sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the court dismissed the renewed appeal against sentence: [2009] EWCA Crim 319.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted by the Single Judge on 16 January 2006, but the appeal was dismissed on 2 February 2006.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The appellant was convicted on 26 August 2005 and sentenced on 17 October 2005 to concurrent terms of 30 months’ detention.