R v Kyle Anthony Stevens

R v Kyle Anthony Stevens

The 10-year SHPO was disproportionate and unnecessary given the appellant's risk profile, mitigation, and the statutory notification period. A five-year SHPO was sufficient and appropriate.

Parties
Prosecutor: 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 Orders
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Sexual Harm Prevention Orders

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

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

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 10-year SHPO was disproportionate and unnecessary given the appellant's risk profile, mitigation, and the statutory notification period. A five-year SHPO was sufficient and appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

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