REGINA v Mortimer

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a Sexual Offences Prevention Order ("SOPO") imposed by His Honour Judge Stokes on the Appellant following conviction after trial on multiple counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of three years. The Appellant, aged 37 at the time of the appeal, had a prior history of sexual offences against children, including prior convictions resulting in extended sentences. The current offences involved the Appellant, recently released on licence, befriending a woman with two young daughters, one of whom was the complainant. The offences were serious in nature. A pre-sentence report highlighted the Appellant's denial of guilt, sexual attraction to young girls, history of repeat offending while on licence, failure to comply with supervision, and a high assessed risk of reoffending and harm to children. Judge Stokes described the Appellant as an exceptionally dangerous paedophile and imposed the SOPO with sixteen prohibitions, all indefinite in duration. The appeal concerns the scope and terms of prohibitions numbered 10 to 16 of the order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the challenged prohibitions (numbers 10 to 16) in the Sexual Offences Prevention Order are necessary to protect the public or particular individuals from serious sexual harm.
2. Whether the terms of these prohibitions are oppressive.
3. Whether the terms of these prohibitions are proportionate to the risk posed by the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The terms of prohibitions 10 to 16 are too wide and indefinite.
• The prohibitions lack sufficient clarity to achieve their protective purpose.
• The prohibitions are not tailored to the specific risk and thus fail to meet the statutory requirements of necessity, proportionality, and non-oppressiveness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Collard [2005] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.)34; [2004] EWCA Crim 1664	Principles governing Sexual Offences Prevention Orders including the necessity for orders to be tailor-made, non-oppressive, and proportionate.	The court applied these principles to assess the challenged prohibitions, emphasizing the need for orders to be specific to the offender's risk and not overly broad or oppressive.
R v Terrell [2008] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 49; 2007 EWCA Crim 3079	Application of Collard principles to SOPOs under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.	Confirmed that the principles from Collard apply to the current statutory regime and guided the court in evaluating necessity, proportionality, and clarity of prohibitions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the challenged prohibitions (10 to 16) individually against the statutory criteria requiring SOPOs to be necessary, proportionate, and non-oppressive. The court found that:

• Paragraph 10's blanket prohibition on possessing any photograph of a child under 16 was vague, indefinite, and unjustified as a blanket ban.
• Paragraph 11, prohibiting possession of any computer, was draconian, unnecessary, oppressive, and disproportionate given the legitimate uses of computers.
• Paragraph 12's restriction on internet use to work, study, or seeking employment was neither necessary nor proportionate and practically unpoliceable.
• Paragraph 14's prohibition on subscribing to the internet was also practically unenforceable.
• Paragraph 15, concerning downloading images of persons under 16, required specific attention and was deemed necessary to address.
• Paragraph 16, banning possession of mobile phones capable of capturing images obtained via internet, was impractical and effectively prohibited any mobile phone possession due to technological advances.

Consequently, the court revised the terms of the order to tailor prohibitions more precisely to the risk posed by the Appellant, balancing public protection with proportionality and enforceability. The revised prohibitions included:

• Limiting possession of photographs of children under 16 to those of family members with written parental permission excluding the Appellant.
• Requiring notification to monitoring authorities within three days of acquiring any computer, iPhone, or mobile phone.
• Restricting use of internet-capable devices without history-retention capabilities, prohibiting deletion of internet history, and obliging disclosure of such history to police on request.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL to the extent of revising the terms of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The prohibitions numbered 10 to 16 were replaced with more narrowly tailored, clear, and enforceable provisions that meet the statutory requirements of necessity, proportionality, and non-oppressiveness.

The direct effect is to modify the appellant's restrictions to a form that better balances public protection with individual rights and practical enforceability. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond applying established principles to the specific facts of this case.