R v Matthew Wayne Shaw

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, no matter relating to any of the victims of these offences shall, during their lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the victim of one or more of these offences. In addition, the judge in the Crown Court made an order to the same effect under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

The applicant applies for an extension (by about 36 days) of the time for renewing his applications, which were refused by the single judge, for an extension by nine days of the time of appealing and, if the extension of time is granted, for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him on 13 March 2023 in the Crown Court at Nottingham for 24 sexual offences, to which he had pleaded guilty in the same court on 23 December 2022, namely, 11 counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, 10 counts of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 10 of the same Act, and three counts of voyeurism, contrary to section 67 of the same Act.

Masquerading as a young boy, the applicant communicated online with seven girls and persuaded them all to perform sexual acts, many of them penetrative, on camera, including persuading one of them to perform sexual acts with a dog. The voyeurism consisted of the applicant using his mobile telephone to record children getting changed in leisure centres.

Most of the sentences were concurrent. The total sentence was a determinate sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment, followed by an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, consisting of a custodial term of 8 years and an extended licence period of 6 years.

The applicant was 38 when he was sentenced. He had no previous convictions. He had worked as a police community support officer for 15 years. He was married with children, but his marriage had broken down since his arrest. He had recently been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and an adjustment disorder.

The applicant has drafted his proposed grounds of appeal and we make allowance for the fact that he is not a lawyer. However, the single judge gave a very full response to the proposed grounds of appeal, in which he explained why he did not consider that any of the proposed grounds of appeal had any merit. He dealt, in particular, with the applicant’s complaints that the total sentence was too long, that insufficient account was taken of the applicant’s autism, that some of the facts relied on by the Crown were incorrect, that the applicant was not dangerous and that the sexual harm protection order was longer in duration and wider in scope than was necessary.

We do not propose to repeat what the single judge said, since the applicant has not engaged with it. We have carefully considered all of the proposed grounds of appeal and all of the papers. We have concluded that the single judge was right, for the reasons which he gave, to decide that the proposed grounds of appeal would have no prospect of success. In those circumstances, the extensions of time sought would serve no purpose. We dismiss the applications.