WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT PLYMOUTH
(MR RECORDER GIBNEY) [50EL0015023]
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWCA Crim 1596
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE
MR JUSTICE BRYAN
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON
____________________
R EX
- v -
LUKE PHILLIP EAMES
____________________
Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_____________________
Non-Counsel Application
____________________
APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________
Tuesday 10 December 2024
LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE: I shall ask Mrs Justice Thornton to give the judgment of the court.
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:
Introduction
The Applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against a suspended sentence order of 40 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with an unpaid work requirement of 100 hours; leave having been refused by the single judge. He also applies for an extension of time of 225 days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence.
Background
The background is set out in the Criminal Appeal Office summary and we do not repeat it here, save to say that the Applicant was automatically subject to notification requirements, pursuant to sections 80 - 92 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, following convictions in 2015 for offences of possession, making, taking and distribution of indecent photographs of children, which is offending specified in Schedule 3 to the Act. As part of the notification requirements, the Applicant was obliged to provide an annual notification to the police. In 2022, that was due by 27 April. The Applicant did not do so until 4 July 2022.
Grounds of appeal
The proposed grounds of appeal, as drafted by the Applicant, are as follows:
The Applicant represented himself at the hearing and contends that the judge did not give him the chance to speak.
It was not the Applicant's intention to be late in registering, but a change of address and a period in temporary and unsuitable accommodation meant that he did not have all the paperwork together.
The police had failed to remind the Applicant of his obligation to register, or he would have done so straight away.
The Judge failed to take account of the difficulties the Applicant had had with his mental health and the fact that as a result of his arrest he lost his employment.
The Judge erred in placing the offence in category B2 under the guidelines; it should have been C3.
Analysis
The Recorder's sentencing remarks are brief. As well as those remarks, we have considered the transcript of the opening of the facts by the prosecution and the oral report from the Probation Service explaining the Applicant's diagnosis of autism.
We see no error in categorising the offending as B2 in the relevant guideline. The Applicant accepts that his action was deliberate; and there is an obvious risk of harm of police not knowing where he was, given the underlying offending. The starting point for B2 offending is 36 weeks' custody. The Applicant's previous notification breaches in 2015 and 2019, and his elusiveness with the Probation Service are aggravating features. His mitigation includes his diagnosis of autism and the oral report from the probation officer that the Applicant struggles to remember things. In this regard, we have taken account of the Sentencing Council Guidelines on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments.
It is apparent that the Recorder accepted that the Applicant was entitled to credit of 1/3 for his guilty plea, which leads to a sentence of 60 weeks' custody, before the application of credit reduced it to 40 weeks. The Applicant was also given an unpaid work requirement of 100 hours.
In our view, the sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive, given the repeated previous breaches and the Applicant's elusiveness in his dealings with the Probation Service, which are of obvious concern, and given that the purpose of the notification requirements is to prevent and deter further offending. Given the view we have taken on the merits of the application, it is not necessary for us to consider the application to extend time.
Accordingly, the renewed application is refused.
____________________________________
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
______________________________