R v Gareth James Hill

The court must stand back from consecutive sentences for multiple breaches and assess whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate. Consecutive terms may reflect separate episodes involving different children, but totality remains controlling. A sentence materially above the applicable guideline range may be manifestly excessive.

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order can be made only where the offence is listed in Schedule 3 or Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. If that condition is absent, the order must be quashed and an existing SOPO continues in force. An incorrect statutory provision in an indictment is a technical defect, rather than a nullity, where it causes no prejudice and could be cured by simple amendment.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. On 24 November 2023, the Crown Court at Truro imposed a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment and made a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in replacement of the existing SOPO.

The appeal against sentence followed refusal of leave by a single judge and renewal before the full court. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the SHPO had been lawfully made, and whether errors in the statutory provisions cited in the indictment invalidated the charges.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The court quashed the SHPO because the offences of conviction were not listed in Schedule 3 or Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as required by section 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The pre-existing SOPO therefore remained in force indefinitely until further order. There was no power to vary its terms.

2. The counts had been framed under section 113(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. For offending after 8 March 2020, the correct provision was section 103I(1), pursuant to the transitional provisions in section 114 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Counts spanning the transition were similarly affected. Applying the approach in R v Stocker [2013] EWCA Crim 1993; [2014] 1 Cr App R 18, the error was technical, caused no prejudice and did not make the indictment a nullity. A simple amendment to the Statement of Offence could have cured it without changing the Particulars of Offence.

3. The judge was entitled to treat the offending as category 1A under the relevant guideline and to impose consecutive terms on counts 2 to 6, because they represented five separate episodes involving different children or groups of children. The concurrent term on count 7 was consistent with totality.

4. Nevertheless, the court had to stand back and ask whether the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate. The sentence of six years and eight months before credit was more than two years above the top of the category 1A range and was manifestly excessive. The proper sentence was 12 months on each of counts 2 to 6 before credit, reduced to nine months on each count for the guilty pleas, producing three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The nine-month sentence on count 7 was concurrent. All other ancillary orders remained in place.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following initial refusal of leave by a single judge, the full court allowed the appeal against sentence, reduced the sentences and quashed the SHPO.
• Crown Court at Truro: On 24 November 2023, sentenced the appellant to five years’ imprisonment for six breaches of a SOPO and made a SHPO in replacement of the existing order.