Rogers, R v

On an appeal against sentence for breaches of a sexual offences prevention order, the appellate court must assess the totality of the custodial term. The appeal fails unless the total sentence is manifestly excessive.

Deliberately withholding a device required to be produced for police inspection may make a breach serious. Related conduct may be considered to show why the order was necessary, although sentence remains for the breach itself. A brief period of unsupervised contact with a child may also be serious where the offender could have avoided it by disclosure or prompt action.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against consecutive sentences of 30 months’ and six months’ imprisonment imposed at Preston Crown Court for two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order, contrary to section 113(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The first breach concerned the deliberate non-disclosure of a laptop for police inspection. The second occurred when the appellant was briefly left alone with a ten-year-old child while on bail for the first breach. The sentencing judge imposed a total of three years’ imprisonment, principally to protect the public. The issue was whether that total was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The first breach was serious. The appellant had deliberately withheld from inspection a laptop which he was required to produce under the order. Although he was sentenced for breach of the order and not for covert filming, the recording stored on the laptop demonstrated both the protective importance of the order and the seriousness of deliberately concealing the device.

3. The second breach was also properly treated as significant despite its short duration and the absence of any allegation of conduct towards the child. The prohibitions were intended to prevent adults unknowingly leaving a child unsupervised with the appellant. He should have disclosed the restrictions or taken immediate steps to prevent that situation arising.

4. The court considered the totality of the sentence rather than its precise structure. The 30-month sentence for the first breach was stiff and perhaps at the upper end of the proper range. However, the six-month consecutive sentence for the second breach was not open to similar criticism. Against the appellant’s extensive history of offending, including sexual offending and earlier breaches of the order, and his failure to be deterred by a previous prison sentence, the total was within the sentencing judge’s discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal and upheld the total sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Preston: On 3 January 2017, imposed consecutive terms of 30 months’ and six months’ imprisonment for two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order.