Dewey v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 409
R v Peter Deane
14 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 929
Court of Appeal
A man was caught with child sexual abuse images, even though they were old. Because of his past crimes and because he didn't hand over the images to the police, a judge ordered him to have his internet use monitored for five years. The appeals court agreed with the judge's decision.
Key Facts
- •Peter Deane (54) appealed his sentence for possession of 9,587 indecent images of children.
- •He pleaded guilty, the Recorder imposed a conditional discharge but also a 5-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).
- •Deane had previous convictions in 2016 for sexual assault and possession of indecent images, resulting in a 3-year prison sentence and a 5-year SHPO.
- •The current indecent images dated back to 2015, before his 2016 convictions; he claimed he attempted to delete them.
- •The appeal challenged the SHPO, arguing insufficient grounds and oppressive terms.
- •Deane had also breached notification requirements and the previous SHPO by possessing an unauthorized mobile phone.
Legal Principles
Test for SHPO: Necessary to protect the public from sexual harm by commission of specified offences; risk must be real, not trivial, fanciful or remote.
R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163
Guidance from R v Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 remains largely sound regarding SHPOs, but must be adapted to technological developments.
R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163
SHPO terms must be necessary, proportionate, and not oppressive.
R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163
Sexual harm can be caused directly and indirectly by indecent images of children.
R v Parsons and Morgan [2017] EWCA Crim 2163 (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court upheld the Recorder's decision, finding sufficient grounds for the SHPO based on Deane's history of serious offences, non-compliance with previous orders, and failure to dispose of the images appropriately.
SHPO terms deemed proportionate and not oppressive.
The SHPO terms closely followed the model order in Parsons and Morgan; no significant departures were identified to prejudice the appellant.