R v Thomas Brand

Whether a custodial sentence should be suspended is a discretionary sentencing decision. The Court of Appeal will intervene only where there is a proper basis, such as a misdirection or error of principle. It is insufficient that the discretion might have been exercised differently. A judge need not catalogue every guideline factor, provided significant matters are addressed and conclusions are expressed.

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order may include internet and child-contact restrictions where they are legitimate and proportionate means of managing future risk. The assessment must consider the evidence as a whole, including the nature and duration of offending and evidence of risk, rather than a single favourable risk assessment.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at St Albans, the appellant was convicted of three counts contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. He received concurrent custodial sentences totalling ten months and was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

By leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence. He argued that the custodial sentence should have been suspended and that restrictions concerning internet contact and unsupervised contact with children were unnecessary. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had erred in exercising the discretion concerning suspension and whether the restrictions were justified by the evidence of future risk.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. Suspension of sentence. The decision whether to suspend imprisonment is discretionary. Appellate intervention requires a proper basis for interfering with the exercise of that discretion; it is not enough that the discretion might have been exercised differently. A sentencing judge need not catalogue every factor in the relevant guidelines, but must state conclusions on the matters of greatest significance. The judge had done so.
2. Application to the sentence. No material and important factor had been overlooked. Having conducted the trial, the judge was well placed to assess the appropriate weight of the competing considerations. He was entitled to take account of the duration and nature of the offending, which had continued for about a decade, and the opportunity to seek help before arrest. The conclusion that appropriate punishment required immediate custody was unassailable. The judge had also properly assessed the personal mitigation, was plainly aware of the appellant’s good character, and had expressly considered the impact on his family. No misdirection or error of principle was established.
3. Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The purpose of the order was to manage the risks presented by the appellant as far as possible. Although the pre-sentence report assessed a low risk of contact offences, it also identified a medium risk of harm to female children aged seven to 14. In the context of the extensive collection of indecent images and the evidence of compulsive sexual behaviour, prohibiting internet contact with children and significantly restricting unsupervised contact were legitimate and proportionate measures.
4. Disposition. Neither ground of appeal was made out. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed. [2025] EWCA Crim 1754.
• Crown Court at St Albans: Following conviction by a jury, concurrent sentences totalling ten months’ imprisonment were imposed, together with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.