R v Gareth James Hill
[2024] EWCA Crim 1009
R v Nicholas Casey Codd
22 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 339
Court of Appeal
A man had a court order (SOPO) restricting his behaviour. He broke it, and the court wrongly replaced the SOPO with a harsher order (SHPO). The appeal court ruled this was illegal, so the original order is back in place. This highlights the importance of correct legal procedures when changing court orders.
Key Facts
- •Applicant sentenced to 20 months imprisonment and SOPO on 9 January 2015.
- •Applicant pleaded guilty to breaches of SOPO and notification requirements on 12 January 2019.
- •Applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrently and SOPO revoked, replaced with SHPO on 8 March 2019.
- •Breach offences were incorrectly charged under section 103(1) and (3) instead of section 113 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
- •Applicant charged with SHPO breach on 24 March 2022 and released after prosecution conceded the SHPO was unlawful.
- •Appeal concerned the Crown Court's power to revoke the SOPO and impose an SHPO.
Legal Principles
A legal error in the formulation of charges, causing no prejudice, does not invalidate the charges.
R v Stocker [2014] 1 Cr App R 18, R v Sheldrake [2023] EWCA Crim 95
A court can only vary a SOPO if application is made by the applicant or a prescribed Chief Officer of Police under section 108(1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 108(1) and (2)
An SHPO can only be made if the applicant is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 or 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Schedules 3 and 5
Transitional provisions in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 allowed breaches of SOPOs to be charged under section 113 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for 5 years after 8 March 2015.
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, section 114
Application to discharge a SOPO must be made by the defendant or a Chief Officer of Police (Criminal Procedure Rules 31).
R v Hamer [2017] 2 Cr App R(S) 13, R v Ashford [2020] 2 Cr App R(S) 57, R v Keywood [2021] EWCA Crim 1692
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Crown Court had no power to revoke the SOPO and impose an SHPO.
Order revoking the SOPO and substituting the SHPO quashed.
The original SOPO revived. The SHPO was improperly imposed as the offences did not meet the requirements of the legislation.
Time extended to make the application.
In the interests of justice.