R v Alexander Robinson

For a suspended sentence of imprisonment of six months or less, the notification requirement under Sexual Offences Act 2003 must run for seven years from conviction. A longer period is unlawful.

The duration and terms of a sexual harm prevention order must be necessary to protect against an identified risk of harm and proportionate to the nature and scale of that risk. Although the statutory scheme permits the order and notification requirement to be aligned, a sentencing court must justify the period selected. An unreasoned ten-year order was reduced to seven years where that was the lawful notification period and adequately reflected the identified risk.

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaching a sexual harm prevention order and to making indecent photographs of a child. He was committed from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court at Guildford for sentence.

The Recorder imposed a six-month suspended sentence and made a ten-year sexual harm prevention order and a ten-year notification requirement. The appellant appealed those periods. The prosecution accepted that the notification requirement exceeded the statutory maximum. The central issue was whether both requirements should be reduced to seven years.

1. Appeal allowed. The ten-year notification requirement was unlawful. Under section 80 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less attracts a notification period of seven years from conviction. The notification requirement was therefore reduced to seven years.

2. The court accepted that the duration, as well as the terms, of a sexual harm prevention order must be necessary to protect against an identified risk of harm and proportionate to the nature and scale of that risk. The appellant had breached the earlier five-year order and was assessed as presenting a high risk of further similar offending. A period longer than five years was therefore justified.

3. Section 352 of the Sentencing Act 2020 makes provision for the notification period to match the sexual harm prevention order. The appellant had relied on R v Kyle Stevens [2023] EWCA Crim 397 concerning that issue. The Recorder had given no reasons for choosing ten years rather than a period between five and ten years. In light of the lawful seven-year notification period and the identified risk, the appropriate duration of the sexual harm prevention order was seven years.

4. All other sentencing orders remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced both the notification requirement and sexual harm prevention order from ten years to seven years.
• Crown Court at Guildford On 23 February 2024, imposed a six-month suspended sentence, a ten-year sexual harm prevention order and a ten-year notification requirement.
• Magistrates’ Court The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.