Jon Newman v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1147
R v Gareth James Hill
24 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1009
Court of Appeal
A man got a 5-year prison sentence for repeatedly breaking a court order that prevented him from being near children. The court decided the sentence was too long and reduced it to 3 years 9 months. They also corrected a mistake made about another court order.
Key Facts
- •Gareth James Hill (appellant, age 43) was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for six offences of breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).
- •Five breaches involved being present on domestic premises where children under 16 were present without parental permission and awareness of his convictions.
- •One breach involved possessing a mobile phone contrary to the SOPO.
- •The judge incorrectly made a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) due to a lack of statutory power.
- •The indictment contained technical errors regarding the correct section of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 cited for the offences.
- •The appellant had previous convictions in 2011 for making and distributing indecent images of children and in 2018 for failing to comply with notification requirements.
- •The appellant consistently lied about his previous convictions to parents of the children.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for breaches of SOPOs/SHPOs under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Sentencing Council guideline, Sexual Offences Act 2003, sections 113(1)(a) and 103I(1), Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 45, Sentencing Act 2020, section 345, Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, section 114.
Test for technical defects in indictments. A purely technical defect causing no prejudice does not make an indictment a nullity.
R v Stocker [2013] EWCA Crim 1993
Proportionality of sentencing.
Implicit in the Court of Appeal's reasoning
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence allowed.
The original sentence of 5 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal considered the overall offending to justify a total sentence of 3 years 9 months' imprisonment.
The SHPO was quashed.
The judge lacked the power to make a SHPO in this case due to the nature of the offences.
The original sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on each count were quashed and replaced with sentences of 9 months' imprisonment on each count.
The court found that 12 months per count resulted in a sentence that was too high. Reducing to 9 months resulted in a more proportionate sentence.