G v R [2006] EWCA Crim 821 (12 April 2006)

G v R [2006] EWCA Crim 821 (12 April 2006)

Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on its natural interpretation, is not incompatible with Article 6.2 ECHR; strict liability offences do not infringe the presumption of innocence. Prosecution and conviction under section 5, even where the facts are less serious, do not necessarily breach Article 8 ECHR if the sentencing judge exercises discretion to avoid disproportionate interference. The sentence imposed was excessive given the mitigation; a conditional discharge is appropriate.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 821
Parties
Appellant: G; Respondent: R; Intervener: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Central Criminal Court to Court of Appeal (criminal Division)
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Sexual Offences Act 2003, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Sentencing of Juveniles, Presumption of Innocence
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Strict Liability Offences Sexual Offences Act 2003 Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Sentencing of Juveniles Presumption of Innocence

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Appellant

R

Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Central Criminal Court to Court of Appeal (criminal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is incompatible with Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (presumption of innocence)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution and conviction under section 5, rather than section 13, constitutes a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights (private life)
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the facts and mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on its natural interpretation, is not incompatible with Article 6.2 ECHR; strict liability offences do not infringe the presumption of innocence. Prosecution and conviction under section 5, even where the facts are less serious, do not necessarily breach Article 8 ECHR if the sentencing judge exercises discretion to avoid disproportionate interference. The sentence imposed was excessive given the mitigation; a conditional discharge is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed.

Orders

  • Sentence of 12 months Detention and Training Order quashed.
  • Conditional discharge for 12 months substituted.