R v William Knowles

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: Introduction

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appeal raises an issue about totality.

2. The appellant is a 63-year-old man, he is a registered sex offender and was subject to an indefinite sexual offences prevention order imposed by Wimbledon Magistrates' Court.

3. The appellant had before these convictions 41 convictions for 90 separate offences spanning from 1977 to 2024. He had convictions for multiple offences of failing to comply with notification requirements and breaching sexual offences prevention orders in 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, twice in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2024. In June 2024 he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for failing to comply with notification requirements and also sentenced for threatening behaviour and racially aggravated harassment. His previous sexual offences had included rape, kidnapping and voyeurism. The appellant suffers from: heart problems and he is due to have surgery; arthritis; and he also has kidney problems. He suffers from epilepsy. On 5 August 2024 he was released from his latest sentence from His Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs. He was required to register with the police within three days of his release from prison, which he failed to do. This was count 1, failing to comply with notification requirements of the sexual offenders register.

4. The failure was notified to the police because on release he was directed to live at the support accommodation in the Kew area of London and he did not attend. The appellant had apparently considered that living in the hostel might bring him into contact with other sex offenders which would have breached the terms of his sexual offences prevention order but he did not speak to anyone about that and just did not attend. He was subject to an indefinite sexual offences prevention order. The conditions included that he was prohibited from travelling between police areas within the United Kingdom without the express permission of the public protection unit. His police offender manager had not been approached by the appellant and he had not given him permission to travel. He was supposed to be residing in Kew but travelling to Gatwick involved travel to another police area. This was count 2, breach of the sexual offences prevention order.

5. The appellant was circulated as wanted and was arrested at Gatwick Airport. By going to Gatwick he had left the Metropolitan Police area. It was suggested that he went there because airports provide shelter and warmth but it was not suggested that he had gone there to offend.

6. On 18 October 2024, having pleaded guilty on 20 September 2024 in Croydon Magistrates' Court, in the Crown Court at Inner London he was sentenced to 1 year 4 months for breach of the sexual offences prevention order and 12 months consecutive for failing to comply with the requirements of the sexual offenders register. That was a total of 2 years 4 months (or 28 months). The judge had set out the facts and noted that the appellant had a very bad record for breaching orders imposed on him. The judge increased the sentence from the starting point to 18 months in relation to count 1, gave credit for the plea of guilty, giving a sentence of 12 months. For count 2, the judge increased from the starting point to 24 months, giving full credit for plea giving a sentence of 1 year 4 months. The judge stated that the sentences would be consecutive and that was how the overall sentence of 2 years 4 months was calculated. Totality Guideline

7. The Totality Guideline provides concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences arise out of the same incident or facts. It goes on to provide that where concurrent sentences are to be passed the lead sentence should be just and proportionate to reflect the overall criminality involved, which may take the lead offence outside the category range appropriate for a single offence. Where consecutive sentences are to be passed, the judge is required to consider the extent of any downward adjustment to ensure that the overall sentence is just and proportionate.

8. Under the offence specific guideline for breach of a sexual offences prevention order this would be a category B deliberate failure and harm category

2. That provides a starting point of 1 year with a range of a high-level community order to 2 years. There are statutory aggravating factors of the previous convictions to which I have already referred. Under the offence specific guideline for failing to comply with notification requirements, this was culpability B for a deliberate failure and harm category

2. That gives a starting point of 9 months with a range of 6 months to 18 months.

9. The judge increased the sentence in relation to the sexual harm prevention order up to 24 months and gave credit for plea to reduce it to 16 months. The judge increased the sentence for failing to comply with the notification requirements up to 18 months and gave credit for plea taking it down to 12 months. The judge then just added the two sentences together and made them consecutive.

10. In our judgment, the judge in doing that, having set out the offence specific guidelines and having applied them properly to the circumstances of this case, failed to address totality. The two sentences should have been made concurrent because they arose out of the same facts, and there should have been a downward adjustment to reflect the fact that it is wrong in principle simply to add sentence on to sentence without considering overall the justness and proportionality of the sentence. Doing the best we can, we consider that the judge should have imposed a sentence for the breach of the sexual offences prevention order of 20 months, and not 28 months, to reflect all of the criminality involved and made a concurrent sentence of 12 months in relation to the count 1 offence.

11. In circumstances where the judge has separated out the two sentences as consecutive and where one sentence is 16 months we will leave the sentence on count 2 as it is at 16 months, and we will reduce the consecutive sentence on count 1 to one of 4 months, giving an overall sentence of 20 months. So the appeal succeeds to the extent that the overall sentence is reduced from one of 28 months to one of 20 months. We are very grateful to Mr Khan for all his helpful written and oral submissions. 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: [email protected]