NC, R. v

A sexual harm prevention order and each of its prohibitions must be necessary

Restrictions on internet-capable devices may be necessary where the offending and risk assessment demonstrate relevant internet use or familiarity. Child-contact restrictions may be maintained while creating a tightly controlled exception for an identified child, conditional on continuing agreement from social services. A prohibition that adds nothing to existing statutory safeguards is unnecessary and should be removed.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Guildford Crown Court to three sexual assaults on children under 13 and causing a child to watch a sexual act. On 18 March 2016 the court imposed sentences which included a ten-year sexual harm prevention order (SHPO).

The applicant sought leave, and an extension of time, to appeal the order’s nine prohibitions. The Court of Appeal had previously set out the full facts in an Attorney General’s reference, [2016] EWCA Crim 1141. The present appeal concerned the necessity, breadth and proportionality of internet-use, child-contact and child-supervision restrictions.

1. The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal. It allowed the appeal to a limited extent and modified the SHPO.

2. Under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 103A, necessity governs both the making of an SHPO and every prohibition included within it. The purpose is protection of the public, or particular members of it, from sexual harm. The court applied, with appropriate adjustment, the questions identified in R v Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772: whether an order is necessary, whether its terms are oppressive, and whether they are proportionate overall.

3. The internet-related prohibitions were upheld. Although the offending did not primarily involve computers, one count involved instructing the child to use a Wii to access YouTube. The applicant also had some familiarity with the internet. Restrictions on internet-capable devices were therefore necessary, and did not restrict their use by other family members.

4. The child-contact prohibitions were in principle necessary because two young girls had been sexually assaulted in the applicant’s home. Their original wording would, however, include his younger daughter. The court retained prohibitions (6) to (8), but added that they would not apply to the named daughter while social services provided and maintained specific agreement. That condition preserved professional control over risk to the child.

5. Prohibition (9), preventing activities likely to bring the applicant into supervisory contact with a child, was deleted. It added nothing to the restrictions already arising under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

The court also endorsed the guidance that a draft protective order should preferably be served at least two clear days before the hearing, rather than produced at the hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave and an extension of time to appeal the SHPO, then allowed the appeal to the limited extent of varying the order.

• Guildford Crown Court: On 18 March 2016, following guilty pleas to sexual offences against children, imposed sentences including a ten-year SHPO.