R v Luke Phillip Eames

For breach of sexual-offence notification requirements, a sentencing court may treat deliberate non-notification and the resulting risk that the police do not know the offender’s whereabouts as features supporting a higher culpability and harm category. Previous notification breaches and evasive dealings with probation may aggravate sentence. Autism and associated difficulty remembering matters are mitigating factors and should be considered with the applicable Sentencing Council guidance.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence, the court will refuse leave where the proposed challenge does not show an arguable basis for concluding that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Plymouth, after a single judge had refused leave. He also sought a 225-day extension of time.

Following earlier convictions for specified sexual offences, he was subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. His annual notification was due by 27 April 2022 but was not made until 4 July 2022. The Crown Court imposed 40 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and 100 hours’ unpaid work.

The applicant challenged the hearing’s fairness, the assessment of culpability and harm under the relevant guideline, and the treatment of his autism, personal circumstances and guilty plea. The central issue was whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive.

1. Renewed application refused. The court held that the proposed appeal disclosed no arguable basis for finding the sentence manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder made no error by placing the breach in category B2 under the relevant sentencing guideline. The applicant accepted that his failure to notify was deliberate. There was an obvious risk of harm because the police did not know where he was, given the underlying offending.

3. The B2 starting point was 36 weeks’ custody. The court accepted that the Recorder allowed one-third credit for the guilty plea: a sentence of 60 weeks’ custody was thereby reduced to 40 weeks.

4. Previous notification breaches in 2015 and 2019, and the applicant’s elusiveness in dealings with probation, were aggravating features. His autism and the reported difficulty remembering matters were mitigating factors. The court took account of the Sentencing Council guidance concerning offenders with mental, developmental or neurological impairments.

5. The notification requirements serve to prevent and deter further offending. In light of the merits decision, the court did not need to determine the application to extend time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1596.
• Crown Court at Plymouth: imposed 40 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 100 hours’ unpaid work.
• Single judge: refused leave to appeal against sentence.