R v Peter Deane
[2023] EWCA Crim 929
R v Kyle Anthony Stevens
22 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 397
Court of Appeal
A man got in trouble for having illegal pictures. The judge gave him a long order to stop him doing it again, but the appeal court made it shorter because he showed he was trying to change.
Key Facts
- •Appellant, Kyle Stevens (24), pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing indecent photographs of children (contrary to section 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) and one count of possessing extreme pornographic images (contrary to section 3(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
- •Possessed 95 Category A, 22 Category B, and 11 Category C indecent images of children (all moving images), and 13 extreme pornographic images.
- •Claimed he accidentally accessed the images via a link but searches for terms like "jailbait" and chats involving bestiality and a 15-year-old were found on his phone.
- •Previous good character; pre-sentence report indicated medium risk of re-offending, low insight, and willingness to improve.
- •Sentenced to three concurrent three-year community orders with rehabilitation, program requirements, and 140 hours unpaid work; forfeiture of iPhone; notification requirements under Sexual Offences Act 2003; and inclusion in the Disclosure and Barring Service list.
Legal Principles
An SHPO should only be imposed if and to the extent its terms are necessary to protect against identified risk of harm and proportionate to the nature and scale of that risk.
R v Smith (Steven), R v Hammond (Paul Churchill), R v Beedle (Robert)
Careful consideration of the appropriate SHPO duration by parties and judge.
R v Smith (Steven), R v Hammond (Paul Churchill), R v Beedle (Robert)
Judge should give reasons for the SHPO duration.
R v Smith (Steven), R v Hammond (Paul Churchill), R v Beedle (Robert)
The appropriate SHPO period should align with the notification requirement period; notification period is automatically extended to match a longer SHPO (Section 352, Sentencing Act 2020).
Section 352, Sentencing Act 2020
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; 10-year SHPO quashed.
The judge failed to adequately consider the proportionality of the 10-year SHPO, did not explain the duration, and mistakenly informed the appellant of a shorter notification period. A 5-year SHPO is sufficient given the appellant's demonstrated insight, commitment to addressing his offending, and the risk assessment.
5-year SHPO substituted for 10-year SHPO.
This aligns the SHPO with the statutory notification period and reflects the appellant's reduced risk of re-offending in the medium term.