Rawlinson v R.

Rawlinson v R.

The notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 did not apply upon the initial conditional discharge for exposure, but arose by operation of law when the appellant was resentenced to imprisonment for breach of the conditional discharge. However, as the custodial sentence was quashed on appeal for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Shaun Rawlinson; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence and Notification Requirements
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence of two months’ imprisonment quashed; no further sentence imposed; notification requirements fell away; no jurisdiction to hear appeal against certificate.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Notification Requirements, Sentencing, Appeal Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Notification Requirements Sentencing Appeal Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Rawlinson

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence and Notification Requirements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applied upon initial sentencing to conditional discharge for exposure
  2. 2 Whether notification requirements applied upon resentencing to imprisonment for breach of conditional discharge
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against notification requirements or the certificate issued under section 92 of the 2003 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 did not apply upon the initial conditional discharge for exposure, but arose by operation of law when the appellant was resentenced to imprisonment for breach of the conditional discharge. However, as the custodial sentence was quashed on appeal for being manifestly excessive, the notification requirements fell away. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the notification requirements or the certificate issued under section 92, absent a public law error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence of two months’ imprisonment quashed; no further sentence imposed; notification requirements fell away; no jurisdiction to hear appeal against certificate.

Orders

  • Sentence of two months’ imprisonment for exposure quashed
  • No further sentence imposed for exposure offence