R v David Mark Valentine

R v David Mark Valentine

The judge was not entitled to impose the Deprivation Order based on acquitted counts, prohibitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the SHPO were not necessary, and indefinite duration for both SHPO and Restraining Order was unjustified; both orders should be limited to 15 years.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: David Mark Valentine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Ancillary Orders, Sentencing, Restraining Orders, Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Deprivation Orders
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Ancillary Orders Sentencing Restraining Orders Sexual Harm Prevention Orders Deprivation Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

David Mark Valentine

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was entitled to impose a Deprivation Order on acquitted counts
  2. 2 Whether prohibitions in the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) were necessary and justified
  3. 3 Whether the duration of the SHPO and Restraining Order should be indefinite

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was not entitled to impose the Deprivation Order based on acquitted counts, prohibitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the SHPO were not necessary, and indefinite duration for both SHPO and Restraining Order was unjustified; both orders should be limited to 15 years.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Deprivation Order set aside
  • Prohibitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of SHPO deleted