R v Ethan Allon
[2023] EWCA Crim 204
R v Suleymaan Ar'raa-ee
9 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1287
Court of Appeal
A judge mistakenly ordered a young man convicted of a sex crime to register as a sex offender. The higher court corrected the mistake because the law only requires registration if the person is an adult or received a long prison sentence. The judge's order was overturned.
Key Facts
- •Applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual activity with a child (counts 2 and 3).
- •A third charge (count 1) was dismissed.
- •Applicant received a 36-month community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement.
- •The Recorder imposed notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for 5 years.
- •Applicant was 17 at the time of the offences and 19 at sentencing.
- •The victim was 13 years old.
- •The notification requirements were wrongly imposed because the applicant was under 18 at the time of the offences and did not receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months.
- •A Cleveland police officer noticed the error.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies, prohibiting publication of victim identifying information.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply only if convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 and not under 18 at the time of offence unless sentenced to a custodial term of more than 12 months.
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Notification requirements take effect by statute, not judicial order. The court's role is to certify eligibility; an appeal does not lie against the statutory application itself.
R v Allon [2023] EWCA Crim 204
The court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where a judge makes an order on notification requirements.
R v Allon [2023] EWCA Crim 204 and this case
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Recorder had no power to impose the notification requirements as the applicant was under 18 at the time of the offences and did not receive a custodial sentence exceeding 12 months.
The notification requirements were set aside.
The Recorder erred in imposing the notification requirements.
Time was extended to seek leave to appeal.
Exceptional circumstances justified the extension.
Leave to appeal was granted.
The appeal had merit.
The section 92 certificates were quashed.
The certificates incorrectly certified the application of notification requirements.