SENTENCING

[2019] EWCA Crim 466 [2019] EWCA Crim 466

Total sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment imposed on a male and female offender respectively following guilty pleas to child sex offences were lenient, but not unduly lenient. The female offender had sent the male offender images of her and her daughter, aged between two and six, engaging in sexual activity. The offending had been rightly categorised in Category 2A of the relevant guideline and the judge’s approach to sentencing was not flawed.

[2019] EWHC 529 (Admin) [2019] EWHC 529 (Admin)

The court could extend the period during which an unpaid work requirement under a community order could be completed, unless and until the offender had completed the specified number of hours work or the order had been revoked, irrespective of whether the 12-month period specified in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.200(2) had ended or the end date specified in the order had passed.

The court modified certain provisions of an indefinite sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender following his guilty pleas to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rape and failure to comply with notification requirements, but maintained the indefinite nature of the order as there was no way of knowing when the offender would stop being a danger.

[2019] EWCA Crim 413 [2019] EWCA Crim 413

When considering the extent of an offender’s benefit from criminal conduct for the purposes of a confiscation order, a court could not extend the meaning of particular criminal conduct beyond the conduct of which a defendant had been convicted, or in respect of which he had pleaded guilty. A confiscation order in the sum of £95,920 for rental income received following non-compliance with a planning enforcement notice was reduced to £58 as the charge specifically referred to conduct “on or about” a particular date.

[2019] EWCA Crim 227 [2019] EWCA Crim 227

A company’s conviction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.2(1) for breach of its duty towards its employees by failing to do all that was reasonably practicable to protect them from exposure to asbestos was well-founded and was not unsafe. However, the fine of £400,000 imposed was manifestly excessive and the appropriate sentence was a fine of £190,000.