R v Mortimer (Jason Christopher)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
JudgeLORD JUSTICE AIKENS
Judgment Date25 May 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWCA Crim 1303
Docket NumberNo: 200904287 A9

[2010] EWCA Crim 1303

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Before: Lord Justice Aikens

Mr Justice Royce

The Recorder of Redbridge His Honour Judge Radford QC

(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

No: 200904287 A9

Regina
and
Jason Christopher Mortimer

MR D OWEN appeared on behalf of the Appellant

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
1

: This is an appeal against the orders made in a Sexual Offences Prevention Order imposed by His Honour Judge Stokes upon the appellant on 4 April 2008 following the appellant's conviction after trial on three counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Judge Stokes had sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term set at 3 years.

2

The appellant, who is now aged 37, had a history of sex offences against children even before the present offences. In February 2003 he was imprisoned to extended sentences of 32-months plus three years in respect of three offences of gross indecency with a child and also 3 offences of indecent assault against a female under 14.

3

In relation to the present offences the appellant had been released on licence from custody for the previous offences just mentioned and had then befriended a woman who had two young girls aged 4 and 8. The elder one was the complainant concerning the 3 counts of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. We do not need to go into the detail of the offences, it is enough to say that they are serious.

4

The pre-sentence report said that the appellant continued to deny his offences, whereas it was clear that he was sexually attracted to young girls and he may have targeted the mother of the complainant in order to get access to the complainant. The report noted a history of repeat offending when on licence and a failure to comply with supervision. There was a concern about the compulsive nature of the appellant's offending and the appellant's own inability to manage his risk to others. The appellant had been recalled from licence four times. The risk of reoffending was assessed as high and the risk of harm to children very high.

5

When Judge Stokes passed sentence he described the appellant as an exceptionally dangerous paedophile who presented a significant risk to young girls. He was quite satisfied that it was a case which called for the protection of the public by a sentence of IPP.

6

The judge appears to have been given a ready prepared draft Sexual Offences Prevention Order with the proposed prohibition set out in manuscript. In relation to the order the judge simply said he would make the order “in the terms I have indicated.” There are 16 prohibitions in the order in all. They are all imposed for an in definite period.

7

Complaint is made about those numbered 10 to 16. The terms of those are as follows:

“10. Having in his possession any photo of a child under 16 unless with permission.

11. Possessing a computer.

12. Using the internet or its successor for purposes other than work, study or seeking employment.

13. Operating private internet account.

14. Subscribing to, accessing or attempting to access internet.

15. Downloading and/or viewing on any computer any image of young persons under 16 unless with permission from parent or guardian.

16. Possessing a mobile phone or other technology capable of capturing an image which has been obtained via internet.”

8

On behalf of the appellant Mr Owen has submitted that the terms of these orders are too wide, indefinite and insufficiently clear to fulfill the object for which they are intended to be given. That object is to protect individual members of the public and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • The Queen v Steven Smith, Wayne Clarke, Bryan Hall & Jonathan Dodd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 19 July 2011
    ...of harm at this level occurring in consequence. 8 We respectfully repeat the useful succession of questions identified by this court in R v Mortimer [2010] EWCA Crim 1303 and which must be addressed when the making of a SOPO is under consideration. They derive from the earlier judgment of R......
  • R v Joseph Matthew Cornwall
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 3 May 2012
    ...level occurring in consequence. 8. We respectfully repeat the useful succession of questions identified by this court in R v Mortimer [2010] EWCA Crim 1303 and which must be addressed when the making of a SOPO is under consideration. They derive from the earlier judgment of Rose LJ in R v C......
  • R v Joslin (Daniel Mark Hedley)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 7 October 2010
    ...ground of appeal and the second prohibition in the Sexual Offences Prevention Order. Giving the judgment of this court in Mortimer [2010] EWCA Crim 1303, Aikens LJ said at paragraph 10: “In the case of R v Collard [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 34; [2004] EWCA Crim 1664, Rose LJ, the Vice President......
  • R v Ockwell (Terrence)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 15 October 2010
    ...exist to deal with any of the concerns that there may now be. 9 Looking at the recent relevant authorities, particularly Mortimer [2010] EWCA Crim. 1303 and Hemsley [2010] EWCA Crim. 225, it is clear that we have to ask ourselves three questions. Is the order complained of necessary to prot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 75-6, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...particular members of the public, fromserious sexual harm from the defendant’. The court echoed the previousguidance in R vMortimer [2010] EWCA Crim 1303 where it held thatthere were three relevant questions that must be addressed:1. Is the making of the order necessary to protect from seri......
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 75-1, February 2011
    • 1 February 2011
    ...to s. 2 ofthe 1957 Act remains to be seen. Nicola WakeThe Journal of Criminal Law16 Restricting Access to the InternetRv Mortimer [2010] EWCA Crim 1303Keywords Sexual offences; Internet; Sexual offences prevention order;Prohibitions; NecessityM had a history of sexual offending against chil......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT