[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bowman, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 3612 (21 December 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/3612.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Crim 3612

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		21st December 2005

1. MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE: On 14th October of this year, at the Crown Court at Croydon, this appellant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one offence of failing to notify a change of address as required by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 21st November of this year he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Joseph to six months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. The facts were as follows. On 19th July 1993, at the Central Criminal Court, for one offence of rape, the appellant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Having been convicted of that offence, he was required to register his address and notify the police of any change within three days. The legislation is rather more complex than that but we need not dwell upon those complexities for the purposes of this appeal.
3. On 17th July 2005 the appellant attended Stoke Newington Police Station in relation to an entirely different matter. He filed a notification of address form and stated that he had been living at an address at Harfield Gardens in London E5 since 9th July of this year. At that time the address contained on the register was at premises at Buxhall Crescent, London E9. The police spoke to a lady who lived at the latter address, that is in London E9, and she stated that the appellant had in fact moved out of that property on 15th April of this year. When interviewed, the appellant confirmed that he indeed left Buxhall Crescent on 15th April. He had then slept rough until he moved to the Harfield Gardens address on 9th July. He notified the police of his new address on 17th July.
4. The appellant is now 46 years old, having been born on 10th June 1969. Prior to his conviction of rape in 1993, he had a poor criminal record. Since that time he has received two further convictions for relatively minor public order offences, but he had also had two previous convictions for this very offence of failing to notify. The first of these was on 3rd September 1998, when he was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment, varied on appeal to seven days' imprisonment, and as recently as 21st March of this year, when he was fined £200 with seven days' imprisonment in default of payment. That last conviction was less than four weeks before he moved from the address on the register in April of this year.
5. The learned judge declined the suggestion that a pre-sentence report should be ordered. In passing sentence, the judge referred, as is obviously the case, that the appellant knew what his obligations under the law were and that for a period of three months he failed to notify the police where he was living. Homeless or not, said the judge, the appellant had an obligation, and a serious obligation for the protection of the public, to notify the police of where he could be found. The judge quite properly noted that this was the third time that the appellant had committed the offence and that the legislation was in place to protect people from those who had been convicted of offences such as that for which this appellant had been convicted in 1993.
6. The learned judge gave full credit for the guilty plea, he said, although it had not been made at the first opportunity. The learned judge took that view because there was some concern that the appellant might have had a proper defence to the charge in law. That arises out of the complexities of the legislation to which we have referred.
7. Clearly this appellant has now fallen foul of the notification requirements under the Act on three separate occasions. It is not necessary to dwell on precisely the reason that he fell foul of it on this occasion; it is clear that he did so. He should have erred on the side of caution by reporting to the police exactly what he was doing as soon as his circumstances changed. The court recognises, however, the complexities that can arise where, as in this case, the appellant was not of fixed abode and at times had been homeless.
8. In our view, a custodial sentence was inevitable, particularly having regard to the previous similar offences committed by the appellant. Moreover, that sentence clearly had to be of greater length than that imposed on the first occasion on which he committed the offence and substantially greater than the sentence that was perhaps rather mercifully passed on the second occasion.
9. However, all those matters considered, we take the view that the sentence in this case was too long, notwithstanding the appellant's past record and the matters which the learned judge quite correctly referred to in passing sentence. In our view, a sentence of two months' imprisonment should be substituted for the sentence of six months' imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court. To that extent this appeal is allowed.
10. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: What does that mean in terms of release? Is he entitled to immediate release?
11. MR CHARLTON: I would hope so, my Lord. This will be his 31st day. I do not know whether my Lord would indicate --
12. LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS: I think we will leave it to the authorities to determine when the correct time for release is. Thank you.
13. MR CHARLTON: I am grateful, my Lord.