Hill, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed on the Appellant following his conviction for multiple breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order ("SOPO") contrary to section 113(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of breach of the SOPO, which restricted his contact with children due to prior convictions for child sexual offences. The breaches involved the Appellant being present in domestic premises where children under 16 were present without the knowledge or consent of their parents, as well as possession of a mobile phone contrary to the SOPO terms.

The Appellant was initially sentenced on 24 November 2023 to a total of five years' imprisonment by the Crown Court, with consecutive sentences imposed for breaches involving different children and a concurrent sentence for the mobile phone offence. The sentencing judge also made a Sexual Harm Prevention Order ("SHPO") pursuant to the Sentencing Act 2020, replacing the existing SOPO.

Subsequently, technical errors were identified regarding the legality of the SHPO and the indictment charges, leading to this appeal against sentence. The SHPO was quashed, and the existing SOPO was confirmed to remain in force. The appeal also challenges the length of the sentence imposed as manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Sexual Harm Prevention Order ("SHPO") made as part of the sentence was valid given the statutory requirements for its imposition.
2. Whether the indictment was correctly charged under the appropriate statutory provisions for breach of a SOPO post-transition to SHPO regime.
3. Whether the total sentence of five years' imprisonment (six years and eight months before credit) was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the offending.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence imposed was too long and manifestly excessive.
• The starting point for sentencing was too high, exceeding the top of the sentencing guideline range for the category of offending.
• Criticism was made of some factual findings by the sentencing judge, but the primary contention focused on the overall length of the sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Stocker [2013] EWCA Crim 1993; [2014] 1 Cr App R 18	Approach to technical defects in indictments and whether such defects cause prejudice or nullity.	The court applied the precedent to determine that the indictment's charging errors were technical and caused no prejudice, allowing amendment without nullifying the indictment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified two technical errors: first, the making of the SHPO was invalid as the Appellant's offences were not within the statutory categories permitting such an order, requiring the SHPO to be quashed and the original SOPO to remain in force indefinitely. Second, the indictment was incorrectly charged under the pre-2020 offence provision; the correct offence post-8 March 2020 is under a different section, but this was a technical defect causing no prejudice.

On sentencing, the court accepted the judge's categorisation of the offending as serious and persistent, falling within category 1A of the Sentencing Council guidelines, warranting a starting point of three years' imprisonment per offence. The judge's imposition of consecutive sentences for breaches involving different children was appropriate to reflect the multiple episodes.

However, the court found the total effective sentence before credit (six years and eight months) disproportionate, exceeding the top of the guideline range by over two years. The court reasoned that a total sentence of three years and nine months after credit would be just and proportionate, adjusting each count's sentence accordingly while maintaining the structure of consecutive and concurrent sentences.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL against sentence.

The sentences of twelve months' imprisonment imposed on each count were quashed and replaced with sentences of nine months' imprisonment per count, with counts 2 to 6 running consecutively, resulting in a total effective sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment. The sentence on count 7 remains concurrent. The SHPO was quashed, and the original SOPO continues in force.

The decision directly affects the Appellant's custodial term and the validity of ancillary orders but does not establish new legal precedent beyond clarifying the application of statutory provisions regarding SOPOs and SHPOs and sentencing principles for multiple breaches.