R v Peter Deane
[2023] EWCA Crim 929
Dewey v R
22 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 409
Court of Appeal
A man was given a court order to stop him viewing child abuse images online. The appeal court changed parts of the order because some parts were too strict and didn't need to be there, keeping the important parts to protect children. The main punishment stayed the same.
Key Facts
- •Dewey pleaded guilty to making/possessing indecent images of children and possessing extreme pornographic images.
- •He received a 12-month suspended sentence and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).
- •The appeal concerns the terms of the SHPO, not the sentence.
- •The SHPO included restrictions on contact with children, use of internet-enabled devices, possession of certain devices, and access to premises.
- •The appellant had a history of downloading indecent images, but no evidence of attempting to contact children.
- •The PSR assessed him as a medium risk of harm to children (likely teenage boys) but a low risk of contact offences.
Legal Principles
When considering SHPO terms, necessity and proportionality are key.
Sentencing Act 2000, section 346; Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 103A and following
Restrictions beyond notification and disclosure/barring must be justified as necessary, not just appropriate.
Hanna [2023] EWCA Crim 33
SHPO terms must be effective, clear, realistic, easily compliant, and enforceable, considering police resource constraints.
Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163; Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed in part.
Several terms of the SHPO were deemed unnecessary or disproportionate and were amended to align with the guidance in Parsons.
The non-contact provision was removed.
No evidence existed of the appellant attempting to contact children, and the PSR indicated a low risk of contact offences.
Restrictions on internet use were maintained but re-worded.
Necessary to control the appellant's access to indecent images but needed to be more practical and enforceable.
Restrictions on mobile phones and image-capturing devices were removed.
No evidence suggested their use for contacting children or creating indecent images.
The provision allowing police access to any premises was deemed too broad and was removed.
Other requirements (notification, production, inspection) were deemed sufficient.
A Defence Costs Order of £145.69 was granted.
To cover transcript costs and travel expenses.