Slocombe, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 2997 (23 November 2005)

Slocombe, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 2997 (23 November 2005)

For the purposes of s 131(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003, the period of detention which the offender is liable to serve under a detention and training order is the custodial part, not the full term. Therefore, the appellant's notification period was three and a half years, which had expired by November 2004, making the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 2997
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Nicholas Slocombe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Notification Requirements, Sex Offender Registration, Sentencing Equivalence, Young Offenders
Criminal Law Notification Requirements Sex Offender Registration Sentencing Equivalence Young Offenders

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Nicholas Slocombe

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a twelve month detention and training order is equivalent to a sentence of imprisonment for more than six months for notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was under a legal obligation to comply with notification requirements at the relevant dates

Ratio Decidendi

For the purposes of s 131(a) Sexual Offences Act 2003, the period of detention which the offender is liable to serve under a detention and training order is the custodial part, not the full term. Therefore, the appellant's notification period was three and a half years, which had expired by November 2004, making the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • convictions quashed