R v Daniel Hyde & others [2016] EWCA Crim 1031

15th July 2016

The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of partial leave in appeals against sentence. Jason Elliott appeared on behalf of one of the appellants. The Court agreed with argument that the Single Judge is entitled to grant leave to appeal against sentence on limited grounds or against only part of a sentence.

The appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for public protection but had also been made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The Court said –

“…Mr Elliott attacked the width of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order . But his primary point was that such an order should not have been made at all in the light of the imposition of the indeterminate sentence; and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying such a course. We agree. Such an order should only be made, under the statutory provisions, where it is “necessary”. Here, it was not necessary. Although the position on this particular point was clarified in Smith [2012] 1 CAR (S) 82 that decision involved no real change in the law on this point as previously understood: rather, it simply restated the effect of the actual statutory provisions.”

The Court accepted that –

“…The Sexual Offences Prevention Order should not have been made and it is wrong to allow it to continue to subsist…” 

The Order was quashed.

Back to News & Insights

Speak to the Experts