[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Daly, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1293 (03 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/1293.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Crim 1293

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		3rd May 2007

1. MRS JUSTICE SWIFT: This is an appeal against sentence.
2. It is necessary before coming to the facts of this offence to explain something of the background. The appellant is 43 years old. He has 38 previous court appearances for 67 offences of various types, including offences of violence, dishonesty, public disorder and drugs. He has served custodial sentences on many occasions.
3. He has a history of flouting court orders, including eight convictions for Bail Act offences and breaches of conditional discharges and community orders. On two occasions he apparently made no contact at all with the probation service after the making of a community order.
4. In March 1996 he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment. He was released in 2000. As a result of that conviction he was placed on the Sex Offenders Register and required to notify the police of any change in his address. He was required, on any release from prison, to notify the police within three days of the address to which he was moving.
5. The appellant failed consistently to comply with these requirements. On 25th February 2005 he was convicted of three offences of failing to comply with notification provisions. He was sentenced on that occasion to 4 months' imprisonment. In September 2005 he was sentenced to a further 3 months' imprisonment for a similar offence. In March 2006 he received a further sentence of 3 months' imprisonment for another similar offence.
6. Since then he has been sentenced to a further period of 12 weeks' imprisonment for two offences of theft and a Bail Act offence. He was released from that sentence on 22nd September 2006.
7. After his release the appellant, once again, failed to register his address with the police within the three days allowed. He was arrested on 7th October 2006 by police officers who recognised him as he was walking in the street. It was that offence which gave rise to the sentence that is the subject of this appeal.
8. He pleaded guilty to the offence on 7th October in the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 24th November, in the Crown Court at Wood Green, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment with a direction that 48 days spent on remand should count towards sentence. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
9. The explanation given by the appellant for his failure to take the necessary steps was that he had intended to register his details following his release from custody, but he was fully occupied with caring for his partner, who is a schizophrenic and had been attacked while he was in custody. He has a somewhat chaotic life-style and frequently changes address. However, he has remained in the same area of London throughout where he is well-known to the police, as evidenced by the fact that he was recognised in the street on this occasion.
10. The sentencing judge rejected the appellant's explanation for his failure, finding that his noncompliance was entirely deliberate and part of a wider pattern of disobedience to court orders. The notification procedures were designed to protect the public and the appellant was frustrating that purpose. The judge took a very serious view of the offence and it was for that reason that he imposed a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.
11. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the appellant's early plea, the lack of aggravating features and the sentences imposed in other comparable cases. For the appellant, Miss McCarroll pointed out in her advice on appeal that there was no evidence that the appellant had failed to notify his address so that he could disappear and commit further offences. On the contrary, he returned to the same area where he was well-known to the police. She submitted that a sentence for as long as 3 years should be reserved for the most serious type of case. She submitted that a step up from sentences of 3 and 4 months' imprisonment, which the appellant had received in the past, was too great.
12. The notification provisions were designed to protect the public and it is a matter of considerable concern that a person who has been convicted of rape does not comply with these provisions. The appellant's repeated failure to comply, coupled with the other instances of non co-operation, by failure to comply with bail conditions and community sentences, are clearly, as the judge found, part of a deliberate policy of disobedience to court orders. They cannot be accounted for by temporary difficulties which the appellant from time to time faces, or by his generally chaotic life-style. It was inevitable, if he persisted in ignoring orders of the court, that he would receive a sentence of imprisonment significantly in excess of those previously imposed. Having said that, we do accept Miss McCarroll's submissions that the sentence of 3 years was too long. There is, as she says, no evidence that the appellant was intending by his noncompliance to conceal his whereabouts from the authorities in order to facilitate the commission of further crime. That would be a seriously aggravating factor and one which would indeed justify a sentence towards the top of the bracket.
13. In all the circumstances, and having regard to the appellant's persistent disobedience of orders, we consider that the appropriate sentence is one of 18 months. We quash the sentence of 3 years and substitute one of 18 months. The appellant will receive credit for 48 days spent in custody on remand as before. To that extent this appeal is allowed.