P, R v

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order may be made only where it is necessary to protect the public, or a member of it, from sexual harm by the defendant. Mandatory notification requirements do not themselves determine necessity, but may be relevant to whether an additional order is justified.

An isolated sexual offence, without prior sexual interest in children or other features indicating a continuing risk, may not justify an order restricting contact with children. In sentencing, abuse of familial trust and a significant age disparity are distinct culpability factors. Relevant statutory aggravating features and the serious impact on a vulnerable victim may justify an uplift within the applicable guideline range.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Mold to sexual activity with a child contrary to Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 9(1). He received 27 weeks’ imprisonment and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

Although the sentencing judge initially proposed an unlawful three-year order, the order was apparently amended to ten years, matching the appellant’s notification period. The appellant challenged both the custodial sentence and the necessity of the order. He argued that the judge had double-counted aggravating matters, failed to give proper mitigation, and imposed an unnecessary order.

The central issues were whether the 27-week sentence was manifestly excessive and whether a Sexual Harm Prevention Order was necessary to protect the public from sexual harm.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court quashed the Sexual Harm Prevention Order, but upheld the 27-week custodial sentence.
2. The offence was correctly categorised under the Sentencing Council guideline as Category 3 harm and culpability A. The abuse of familial trust and the substantial disparity in age were separate culpability considerations. Their frequent coexistence did not make their consideration double-counting.
3. There was no double-counting in the sentencing exercise. The victim’s vulnerability and trust, the serious impact on her and her family, and the commission of the offence at home and late at night justified a significant uplift from the 26-week custody starting point. Although the offence was isolated and the appellant had no relevant convictions or prior history of sexual interest in children, a post-trial starting point of 30 weeks and the 10 per cent credit given for the late plea produced an appropriate sentence of 27 weeks.
4. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 103 required proof that it was necessary to protect the public or a member of it from sexual harm by the appellant. The mandatory notification requirements did not establish that necessity. There was no prior sexual interest in children, the offence was isolated, and the unusual circumstances were unlikely to recur. No additional order preventing contact with underage girls was therefore necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the Sexual Harm Prevention Order and quashed it; dismissed the appeal against the 27-week custodial sentence: [2018] EWCA Crim 1076.
• Crown Court at Mold: The appellant pleaded guilty on 13 January 2018 to sexual activity with a child and, on 12 March 2018, received 27 weeks’ imprisonment and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.