Grosvenor, R v

Failure to comply with sexual-offender notification requirements ordinarily attracts a sentence of four to six months’ imprisonment where an offender’s whereabouts have been unnotified for up to about three months and no aggravating feature is present. That range is not a ceiling. A longer sentence may be justified by deliberate flouting of the requirements, a settled intention to evade them, or repeated breaches.

The duty under Sexual Offences Act 2003 is mandatory. Homelessness may make compliance difficult, but an offender who chooses to remain of no fixed abode when accommodation is or can be made available will rarely obtain mitigation on that basis.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Peterborough Crown Court to failing to comply with the notification requirements imposed upon him following sexual offending. He had been released on licence, failed to attend approved accommodation, and did not notify the police of an address or whereabouts. His location was unknown for about five weeks until his arrest.

The Crown Court imposed eight months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave, relying on earlier sentence appeals concerning notification failures and on his asserted belief that, while of no fixed abode, he had no address to notify. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The eight-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. Section 84(1)(d) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires an offender, within three days of release, to notify the police of a new home address or premises at which he regularly resides or stays. The notification regime serves public safety and must be complied with.

3. The earlier sentence decisions indicated a range of four to six months’ imprisonment where a change of address had gone unnotified for up to about three months and there were no aggravating factors. That range was not a maximum sentence for such offences. A longer sentence is appropriate where an offender deliberately flouts the requirements or repeatedly breaches them.

4. Being of no fixed abode can make compliance difficult, but it does not displace the mandatory duty. A deliberate choice to remain without a fixed address, where accommodation is or can be available, will rarely mitigate the offence.

5. Although the appellant was not shown to be a sexual predator, had been untraced for only about five weeks, and quickly gave his true name after arrest, this was his third notification breach. His previous breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order and his stated intention to evade the regime showed indifference to court orders. Those aggravating matters justified the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against an eight-month sentence was dismissed: [2010] EWCA Crim 560.
• Crown Court at Peterborough: On 29 January 2010, the appellant pleaded guilty to failure to comply with notification requirements and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.