R v Peter Deane

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order may be made only where it is necessary to protect the public from a real risk of sexual harm through further specified offending. The risk cannot be trivial, fanciful or remote. The court must also decide whether the proposed terms are oppressive and whether the order, including its duration, is proportionate.

Necessity is assessed holistically. Low culpability for the current possession offence does not prevent a finding of continuing risk where the offender’s serious sexual history, failure to comply with previous protective measures, and failure to surrender offending material support that conclusion. Internet-monitoring conditions closely following the technology-adapted model order will not be oppressive without a material prejudicial departure.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to possessing 9,587 indecent images of children. The images were on hard drives seized in April 2020. Forensic evidence established that the files dated from 2015, before his earlier convictions for sexual assault of a child and indecent-image offences.

On 15 February 2023 the Recorder imposed a 12-month conditional discharge and a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The appellant challenged only the order. He contended that there was no real risk justifying it and, alternatively, that its internet and data-storage conditions were oppressive. The central issue was whether the order was necessary and proportionate to protect the public from sexual harm.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to find that a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order was necessary to protect the public from a real risk of sexual harm.

2. The applicable inquiry was whether an order was necessary to protect the public from sexual harm through specified offending; whether its terms were oppressive; and whether, overall, they were proportionate. The risk had to be real, rather than trivial, fanciful or remote. The Recorder correctly directed himself by reference to those principles.

3. The appellant’s current culpability was low because the images had been created in 2015 and he had sought to delete them. That did not make his culpability negligible or remove the risk. He retained the hard drives instead of giving them to the police. That conduct was properly assessed against his serious earlier sexual offending, his non-compliance with the earlier order, and his failure to comply with notification requirements.

4. The court therefore upheld the Recorder’s conclusion that the appellant could not safely be left with unrestricted internet-enabled equipment. The lifetime notification requirements and conditional discharge did not displace that assessment.

5. The internet, data-storage and cloud-storage conditions closely followed the model approved in R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163. No significant prejudicial departure or oppressive feature was identified. The order remained proportionate in its terms and duration.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence and upheld the five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 15 February 2023, the Recorder imposed a 12-month conditional discharge for possession of indecent images of children and made the Sexual Harm Prevention Order.