R v Catherine Pearl

A sexual harm prevention order must be necessary to protect the public from sexual harm. Its prohibitions must be effective, clear, realistic, enforceable, non-oppressive, proportionate and tailored to the facts. Standard internet restrictions are not justified where offending had no internet element and there is no concern that the offender will use the internet to contact other victims or access unlawful pornography. Contact prohibitions require an identifiable risk of contact offences concerning other children. A restriction on employment involving authority or care of children may remain necessary where the offending occurred in such employment, even if the offender is currently debarred and does not presently intend to return to it.

After pleading guilty to two offences of abuse of trust by sexual activity, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Oxford to 28 months’ imprisonment. The court also imposed an indefinite restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order. The SHPO contained restrictions concerning internet-enabled devices and communications, employment involving children, and contact with children under 18.

The appellant challenged only the SHPO, arguing that it was unnecessary and disproportionate or that its scope should be narrowed. The central issue was whether each restriction was necessary to protect the public from sexual harm and proportionate to the actual risk disclosed by the offending.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The existing SHPO was quashed and replaced by a new 10-year SHPO, running from 23 January 2025, containing only the prohibition on seeking or holding paid or voluntary employment involving authority or care of children under 18.
2. The guidance concerning sexual offence protection orders in R v Smiths and Ors [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 applied equally to SHPOs. Under the principles restated in R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163, an SHPO should be made only where necessary to protect the public from sexual harm. Any prohibition must be effective, clear, realistic, readily capable of compliance and enforcement, non-oppressive, proportionate and tailored to the facts. Breach is a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years under section 354 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
3. The restrictions on internet-enabled devices, online communications, VPNs and related access were unnecessary and disproportionate. The offending had no internet or indecent-image element. It arose from an inappropriate relationship with one individual, and there was no concern that the appellant would use the internet to contact other potential victims or access unlawful pornography. The court relied on the importance of internet access in ordinary life, identified in R v Smiths and Ors [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 at [20].
4. The employment restriction was necessary and proportionate. The offending occurred in paid employment involving pastoral responsibility and authority over children. The appellant’s present lack of intention to undertake such work and her exclusion from teaching did not remove the risk, since her intentions could change and she planned to move to an area where her history might not be known.
5. The restrictions on living with, entering households containing, and contacting children were unnecessary and disproportionate. R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163 required an identifiable risk of contact offences before such prohibitions could be justified. No such risk existed concerning children other than the victim, who was protected by the restraining order. The appellant’s good character, admissions, family support, low assessed risk, notification requirements and inclusion on the Disclosure and Barring Service list provided further relevant safeguards.

1. Crown Court at Oxford: Following guilty pleas, imposed 28 months’ imprisonment, an indefinite restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal concerning the SHPO, quashed the original order and substituted a narrower 10-year order containing only the employment restriction.