Stevens, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 397 (22 March 2023)

Stevens, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 397 (22 March 2023)

The judge erred by imposing a 10-year SHPO without justification, failing to align it with the five-year notification period, and not considering proportionality. A five-year SHPO is sufficient and necessary based on the appellant's risk and circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 397
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Kyle Anthony Stevens
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Sentencing, Sexual Harm Prevention Order, Notification Requirements
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Sexual Harm Prevention Order Notification Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Kyle Anthony Stevens

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 10-year duration of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by imposing a 10-year SHPO without justification, failing to align it with the five-year notification period, and not considering proportionality. A five-year SHPO is sufficient and necessary based on the appellant's risk and circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The 10-year SHPO is quashed and replaced with a five-year SHPO in the same terms.