- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Broadstock, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal (panel led by Judge Holgate and Judge Robinson) from a conviction and sentence imposed in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Payne. The Appellant was convicted on 30 June 2025 of two offences: attempting to incite a child to engage in penetrative sexual activity (count 1) and attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child (count 2). On 5 September 2025 the sentencing judge imposed an immediate custodial sentence (two years nine months on count 1; no separate penalty on count 2), notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) described in the judgment that contained extensive internet- and device-related prohibitions. The SHPO was made without any limit as to duration (expressed as "until further order"). The Appellant obtained leave to appeal limited to the indefinite duration of the SHPO. The appeal was argued by Attorney Wood for the Appellant.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge was wrong in principle to make the Sexual Harm Prevention Order indefinite in duration and whether that resulted in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Sokolowski [2017] EWCA Crim 1903; [2018] 4 WLR 126 | Requirement that an indefinite SHPO should not be made without careful consideration and that reasons should be given for making it indefinite unless obvious. | The court applied Sokolowski to hold that the sentencing judge ought to have given reasons for making the SHPO indefinite and that reasons were not obvious in this case. |
| R v Smith (Steven) [2011] EWCA Crim 1772; [2012] 1 WLR 1316 | Principle that the duration of an SHPO need not be the same as notification requirements tied to custody length. | The court relied on Smith to reject any automatic linkage between the indefinite notification requirement and the duration of the SHPO. |
| R v McLellan [2017] EWCA Crim 1464; [2018] 1 WLR 2969 | Procedure: prosecution should serve a draft SHPO indicating proposed requirements and duration for consideration at sentence. | The court noted the absence of a draft addressing duration in this case, applying McLellan on procedural expectations for sentencing hearings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court set out the statutory threshold for making a SHPO—necessity to protect the public from sexual harm—and emphasised that prohibitions must be necessary, not oppressive, and proportionate. It reiterated that an order should not be indefinite without careful consideration and that reasons are required for an indefinite order (R v Sokolowski). The court observed procedural shortcomings: the prosecution had not produced a draft order addressing duration, the defence and prosecution had agreed a presentence note that did not address the SHPO, and there was no discussion of duration during sentencing submissions. The judge announced an indefinite duration only after pronouncing the order, gave no reasons, and did not invite submissions.
Applying the principles to the facts, the court considered the four-year gap between offending and sentence with no subsequent offending; the pre-sentence report and expert evidence indicating the Appellant was of previous good character, had no prior convictions, that devices showed no interest in children, and that he was likely to engage with intervention to reduce risk. The court concluded that, on the material before it, an indefinite SHPO was disproportionate. It determined that a ten-year duration would have been appropriate.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the Sexual Harm Prevention Order made on 5 September 2025 is quashed and substituted with an order in the same terms but expressed to remain in force until 5 September 2035 (ten years).
Implications: The direct effect is that the SHPO's duration is limited to ten years rather than being indefinite; all other aspects of sentence (including custody and notification requirements) remain unchanged. The opinion applies established principles concerning necessity, proportionality and the need to give reasons for indefinite SHPOs; it does not purport to create a new precedent beyond applying those principles to these facts.
Alert