R v Valentine 2025
On 2 December 2024, V (aged 57) was convicted of indecent assault (see note (i) below), assault of a child under 13 by penetration, and two counts of assault by penetration. No evidence was offered on charges related to indecent photographs of children and prohibited images of a child (Counts 5-8), resulting in not guilty verdicts. Count 1 involved indecent touching of a female complainant (C1) aged under 13 between 2002-2004 while she stayed at V's house. Counts 2-4 related to digital penetration of a second female complainant (C2) on multiple occasions when she was between ages 6-14.
On 7 February 2025, V received an extended determinate sentence of 13 years (9 years custody plus 4 years extended licence).
The judge also imposed three ancillary orders: a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) until further order, a Restraining Order until further order, and a Deprivation Order for seized electronic devices.
The pre-sentence report noted V accepted but did not agree with the verdicts, showed no remorse, and presented a high risk of causing serious harm to pre-pubescent/pubescent girls.
V had no previous convictions and one caution for battery from 2005.
V appealed specifically against the ancillary orders, not the custodial sentence.
V argued that the Deprivation Order violated the Ayensu principle (see note (ii) below) as it effectively sentenced him on the basis of offences for which he had been acquitted (Counts 5-8).
Regarding the SHPO, V contended that paragraphs 5 and 6 (requiring access to electronic devices and home visits) failed the statutory test of necessity since he had been acquitted of offences involving digital devices. V submitted that there was no justification for an indefinite SHPO, with the judge failing to explain why a fixed-term order would not suffice.
Regarding the Restraining Order, V argued it failed the statutory purpose test under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, as there was no evidence of harassment or conduct causing fear of violence. V noted he had not contacted C1 for over a decade and had not contacted C2 since his arrest in November 2021. He contended that even if a Restraining Order was justified, its indefinite duration was disproportionate.
The Crown sought all three orders, arguing they were necessary for public protection given the serious nature of the offending and the pre-sentence report's conclusions about risk.
Held
Appeal partially allowed.
The Court affirmed that V's offending was very serious, causing lasting distress and harm as evidenced in C2's victim personal statement and agreed that the finding of dangerousness and the extended determinate sentence were justified given his inability to acknowledge his offences and high risk of reoffending.
Regarding the Deprivation Order, the Court held that it was unlawful. Since V was acquitted of Counts 5-8 relating to indecent images, the judge could not proceed on a contrary basis per the Ayensu principle. The Court found no sufficient basis to conclude V intended to use the devices for committing or facilitating offences under s.153(3)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2020.
For the SHPO, the Court ruled that paragraphs 5 and 6 faced the same objection of being founded upon counts for which V was acquitted, and thus failed the test of necessity. An indefinite SHPO was not justified as the need for it to be unlimited in time did not "speak for itself" and required explanation.
The Court modified the SHPO by removing provisions requiring V to make electronic devices available for inspection and allow police access to his home, and reduced both the SHPO and Restraining Order to 15-year terms rather than indefinite duration.
Regarding the Restraining Order, the Court rejected V's contention that s.360 of the Sentencing Act 2020 imposes a test of necessity, finding instead that orders must be made for the identified statutory purpose with judicial discretion. The Court concluded that a Restraining Order for both C1 and C2 was justified despite the passage of time, but agreed there was insufficient reason for it to be of indefinite duration.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.