Marshall, R. v

Sentence for failing to comply with sexual-offender notification requirements must reflect the offence’s individual culpability and consequences. There is no general sentencing ceiling. The conduct may range from an inadvertent and harmless breach to deliberate evasion with malign intent.

The assessment must recognise that the requirements protect public safety. It should take account of the nature and extent of the offender’s sexual offending, the risk posed to the public, and the offender’s understanding of and attitude towards compliance with the requirements imposed under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The applicant had been subject to indefinite sex-offender notification requirements following a rape conviction. After a fire damaged his last known address, he moved to accommodation with a friend. Although he initially telephoned the police, he did not subsequently attend a police station or provide his new address despite a warning that this was required.

He pleaded guilty before the magistrates and was committed to the Crown Court at Gloucester, where he received 12 months’ imprisonment. This was his second conviction for non-compliance with the notification requirements.

His application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court. The issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether adequate credit had been given for the early guilty plea.

1. Application refused. The 12-month sentence was amply justified and was not manifestly excessive.
2. The court declined to give general sentencing guidance because breaches of notification requirements vary greatly in seriousness. They range from a virtually inadvertent failure, long after the original conviction and without harmful consequences, to deliberate conduct intended to evade the requirements with malign intent. Sentence must reflect the particular culpability and consequences.
3. The notification regime exists to protect the public from persons who have committed sexual offences. The seriousness assessment should therefore address the underlying sexual offending, the risk posed by the individual, and relevant evidence of the offender’s understanding of and attitude to compliance with the requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
4. The court considered R v Grosvenor [2010] EWCA Crim 560. That decision confirmed that there was no imprisonment ceiling of about three months for such offending, particularly where an offender is settled on ignoring the requirements. Its outcome did not mean that the sentence in that case was necessarily appropriate for its particular criminality.
5. Here, the applicant had committed serious sexual offences, had shown little insight into their effect, had previously received imprisonment for the same notification breach, and repeated it despite a clear warning. Although appropriate allowance had to be made for his early guilty plea, those aggravating features fully supported the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2011] EWCA Crim 638, refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Gloucester — on 17 December 2010, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment following conviction for failing to comply with notification requirements.
• Magistrates’ Court — the applicant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.