R v Owen Huw David

R v Owen Huw David

Prohibition 13 was disproportionate, vague, and failed to specify a supervising person or organisation as required by statute. The sentencing judge did not provide reasons for its necessity or proportionality. The order was therefore unlawful and must be deleted from the SHPO.

Parties
Appellant: Owen Huw David; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Sentencing, Proportionality, Human Rights
Criminal Law Sexual Harm Prevention Orders Sentencing Proportionality Human Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen Huw David

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prohibition 13 of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order was necessary and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the order complied with statutory requirements for clarity and supervision
  3. 3 Whether the order breached Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act

Ratio Decidendi

Prohibition 13 was disproportionate, vague, and failed to specify a supervising person or organisation as required by statute. The sentencing judge did not provide reasons for its necessity or proportionality. The order was therefore unlawful and must be deleted from the SHPO.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Prohibition 13 is deleted from the current Sexual Harm Prevention Order.