Hemus, R v [2021] EWCA Crim 656
[1]The prosecution were required to provide evidence of the images in the indictment. The applicant had indicated a guilty plea to counts 1 to 3 and 5 on the basis that the images were accessible and that the prosecution could prove this.On 21 May 2019 prohibited images were found on the applicant's mobile telephone. It and
[2]The applicant pleaded guilty to preserve his credit for his plea. He is on the autistic spectrum and did not feel able to reject the advice provided to him by his solicitor.[3]The applicant instructed his solicitors to obtain further information from the prosecution and establish that the images relating to counts 1, 2 and 3 were, in whole or in part, inaccessible.[4]The prosecution accepted on 11 May 2020 when the matter was listed for sentence that the images were inaccessible and that they could not provide the evidence or descriptions of the images for counts 2 and 5, to which the applicant had pleaded guilty.14. information from the prosecution about the images.15. this is not one of those cases.16. inaccessible. On the contrary, the applicant accepted that they were accessible.17. harm to children through downloading and watching child abuse images. The proposed grounds of appeal against sentence are as follows:[1]The sentence imposed was excessive. The pre-sentence report was prepared with reference to counts 1, 2 and 3 and made reference to category A images which were not before the court.[2]The content of the pre-sentence report was inaccurate. The applicant did not say that he used indecent or prohibited images to stimulate himself before viewing adult material, neither did he express any interest in children.[3]The notification requirements and registration on the sex offender's register offend the applicant's human rights.[4]The Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed having regard to the applicant's previous convictions and inaccuracies in the pre-sentence report. Again, we have considered the merits of these proposed grounds afresh. However, we agree22. with the single judge, who said as follows: "The Judge applied the relevant Sentencing Guideline to the offences to which you pleaded guilty and passed a sentence towards the lower end of the appropriate category range. Your previous conviction was an aggravating factor of your offending and account was taken of the mitigating factors. The notification period as a sex offender was fixed by statute and the terms of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order were appropriate."23. we refuse both applications. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk