Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
SHPO terms restricting internet use and social media were not necessary or proportionate as the offending did not involve sharing images online; only restrictions on possession and storage of digital images were justified.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal reduced an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order to 10 years after finding no justification for an open-ended duration.
The sentencing judge erred by setting the sexual harm prevention order's duration to match the notification period without an independent assessment of necessity and proportionality; the appropriate duration, considering the appellant's risk and circumstances, is 5 years.
Source excerpt
XFV, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 287 (19 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal refused an extension to appeal conviction and dismissed the sentence appeal in a sexual offences case involving multiple complainants and breach of trust.
The Court of Appeal allowed an Attorney General’s reference, finding a sentence for child sexual offences unduly lenient and increasing the custodial term on count 5.
Miah, R. v (Rev1) [2026] EWCA Crim 129 (29 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal reduced a sexual harm prevention order from 10 years to 5 years, holding the sentencing judge erred by treating it as matching notification requirements.
The judge properly exercised discretion in refusing to suspend the sentence, considering the seriousness, duration, and risk factors; the prohibitions in the Sexual Harm Prevention Order were proportionate and justified by the assessed risk to children.
Source excerpt
Morgan, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 94 (27 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal increased Wayne Morgan’s sentence for repeated sexual offences against his daughter, finding the original term failed to reflect the overall gravity of the offending.
The sentence of three years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences, the mitigation available, and the Recorder's approach. However, the imposition of an indefinite SHPO was disproportionate; a 10-year term was appropriate.
Source excerpt
The judge was not entitled to impose the Deprivation Order based on acquitted counts, prohibitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the SHPO were not necessary, and indefinite duration for both SHPO and Restraining Order was unjustified; both orders should be limited to 15 years.
Source excerpt
Explore more
