Factual and Procedural Background
On 20 March 2026, the Appellant pleaded guilty to failing without reasonable excuse to comply with notification requirements under section 91(1)(a) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. [1]
The Appellant had previously been convicted of offences involving indecent and prohibited images of children. He was made subject to indefinite notification requirements and a sexual harm prevention order. [2][3]
He breached those requirements by notifying the police late, concealing that his wife and child lived with him, and deleting WhatsApp messages in breach of the order. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. [4][5][6][7]
After later registering as homeless, the Appellant failed to re-register by the required date and registered one day late. This constituted the new offence and breached the suspended sentence order. [8][9][10]
The sentencing court activated the suspended sentence with a reduced term of 16 months and imposed a consecutive four-month sentence for the new offence, producing a total of 20 months’ imprisonment. The Appellant appealed with permission. [11]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 16-month activation term was proportionate in light of the Appellant’s compliance with the suspended sentence order. [12][13]
- Whether imposing the four-month sentence for the new offence consecutively made the overall sentence manifestly excessive. [14][12]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The overall sentence was manifestly excessive. [15]
- The Appellant was only one day late, had not attempted to abscond, had not concealed his whereabouts, and had not acted deceptively in relation to the new offence. [16]
- The Appellant had strong mitigation, including homelessness, positive engagement with probation, and substantial compliance with supervision requirements. [16]
- The activation term should have been reduced further, and the consecutive sentence made the total sentence disproportionate. [14]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the new offence substantially less serious, viewed in isolation, than the conduct underlying the suspended sentence order. The late notification appeared to result from family stress, disorganisation, or both, and there was no evidence of an attempt to evade the police. [17]
However, the offence had to be assessed in context. The Appellant had previously concealed his child’s existence, lied to his offender manager, and deleted 79 messages. The Court characterised that earlier conduct as devious and prolonged. [18]
The Court also noted that the Appellant knew late notification was prohibited because he had already been sentenced for similar conduct, yet repeated the breach shortly after receiving the suspended sentence order. The Court therefore found little mitigation for the new offence. [19]
The Court rejected the argument that the Appellant’s progress justified reducing the activation term by more than four months. It held that the 16-month activation term was proportionate and that the sentencing judge had not erred in that respect. [12][13]
Nevertheless, the Court concluded that imposing a consecutive sentence for the new offence was disproportionate because, without the breach of the suspended sentence order, the new offence would not have warranted custody. [20]
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED TO A LIMITED EXTENT. The four-month consecutive sentence was quashed and replaced with a four-month sentence concurrent with the 16-month activation term. The overall sentence was therefore reduced from 20 months to 16 months’ imprisonment. [21]
The activation of the suspended sentence remained unchanged; only the relationship between the two sentences was altered. The opinion does not state that any new precedent was established. [21]