Bricknell, R v

Whether non-compliance with sexual-offence notification requirements has continued for a long period is a fact-sensitive sentencing question. It is open to a sentencer to treat failures extending for more than six months as satisfying that culpability factor, even though more prolonged examples can arise. The guideline does not require fixed parameters for that assessment.

Where a notification offender repeatedly fails to report stays at a household containing children, a recent conviction for similar non-compliance may materially aggravate the offending. Even allowing for overlap between counts and personal mitigation, immediate custody may be necessary to achieve appropriate punishment. An appellate court will not interfere merely because the sentence is stiff or high within the proper range.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences under section 91 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He had failed to notify the police of repeated stays at his partner's home, where her children were usually present, of a continuous seven-day stay there, and of a new bank account.

The Magistrates' Court committed him to the Crown Court at Basildon for sentence. On 16 May 2019, the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment. The judge assessed the offending as category A2 under the relevant Definitive Guideline and declined to suspend the sentence.

On appeal, the central issues were whether category A culpability was justified, whether the offending involved a long period of non-compliance, and whether the total immediate sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment were not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was wrong to find determined attempts to avoid detection. The prosecution had not advanced that factor, and the judge identified no factual basis for it. That error did not make the sentence excessive.

3. Whether there has been a long period of non-compliance depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. The appellant's first failure occurred in August 2018 and his sustained, more serious failures occurred between November 2018 and February 2019. The court held that the period properly exceeded six months and that the judge was entitled to treat it as long. In any event, if that factor had not placed the case in category A, the duration would have been a serious aggravating feature of a category B offence.

4. There was substantial overlap between the three offences. The bank-account breach was comparatively minor, and the appellant had personal mitigation. However, the principal seriousness lay in repeated unnotified stays over about three months at a home containing children. The recent previous conviction for closely similar offending significantly aggravated the case. A pre-plea total of 18 months was within the proper range, and immediate custody was open to the judge because appropriate punishment could only thereby be achieved.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): sentence appeal dismissed; the concurrent 12-month custodial sentences were upheld.
• Crown Court at Basildon: on 16 May 2019, imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment after guilty pleas.
• Magistrates' Court: accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.