Thomas, R v

For a dangerousness assessment under section 229, the risk inquiry is not confined to the specified offences charged. The court may assess the risk of future specified offending from the offender’s wider pattern of conduct. Sentencing for multiple grave offences must nevertheless give proper effect to totality; a legally available consecutive extended-sentence structure may produce an excessive aggregate term. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order must be necessary, effective, clear, realistic, proportionate and tailored to the facts. Its duration, particularly where it extends notification requirements, requires individual justification.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Swindon to offences involving sexual activity with children, controlling or coercive behaviour, harassment, conspiracy to commit criminal damage, and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. The offending involved sustained intimidation, abuse and controlling conduct towards several young complainants.

On 7 September 2017 the Crown Court imposed seven years’ determinate imprisonment followed by a consecutive extended sentence of thirteen and a half years. It also made an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a restraining order. The appellant appealed by limited leave against dangerousness, the overall sentence, and the terms of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The central issues were whether dangerousness was established, whether the aggregate custodial term complied with totality, and whether the protective order was necessary and proportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The finding that the appellant was dangerous was upheld. His sustained pattern of targeting underage girls, followed by intimidation, sexual abuse and violence, established a significant risk of serious psychological harm and justified an extended sentence.

2. The court rejected the submission that, for section 229 purposes, the risk assessment was confined to the particular specified offences charged. The sentencing judge could consider the risk that the appellant would commit other specified offences and could treat the specified offences as identifying the relevant character of the future risk.

3. However, the aggregate custodial period of eighteen and a half years was manifestly excessive. Although the original consecutive structure was generally lawful, it gave insufficient weight to totality. The court substituted one aggregated extended sentence on count 2 of thirteen and a half years, comprising eleven and a half years’ custody and two years’ extended licence. All other sentences remained but were concurrent. The revised sentence adequately reflected the overall criminality. The court stressed that this did not detract from the ordinary principle that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice may merit a consecutive sentence.

4. Applying the principles in R v McLellan [2017] EWCA Crim 1464 and R v Parsons [2017] EWCA Crim 2163, the court substantially curtailed and tailored the Sexual Harm Prevention Order. It substituted specified prohibitions focused on females under 16, internet use, chat rooms, email accounts, and attendance at residential addresses where such a child was present. A fixed period of fifteen years was proportionate, including the period for which the order would operate after release. The restraining order remained indefinite.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence. It upheld dangerousness, substituted a concurrent sentencing structure with an eleven-and-a-half-year custodial element, and replaced the Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
• Crown Court at Swindon On 7 September 2017 imposed seven years’ determinate imprisonment followed by a consecutive extended sentence of thirteen and a half years, an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and an indefinite restraining order.