BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[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 >> Fowler, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 767 (20 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/767.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 767

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 767
CASE NO 202403092/A3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SNARESBROOK
HHJ COHEN T20230386

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
20 May 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE HILLIARD
MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE

____________________

REX
- v -
ANTHONY FOWLER

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MISS F McADDY appeared on behalf of the Applicant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. MR JUSTICE HILLIARD: The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall, during that person's lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
  2. On 13 June 2024, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the applicant was convicted of eight sexual offences. On 30 July 2024, he was sentenced as follows:
  3. Count 1, indecent assault, six years' imprisonment.
    Count 2, indecency with a child, 21 months' imprisonment.
    Count 3, indecent assault, a special custodial sentence comprising eight years' imprisonment with an extended licence of one year.
    Count 4, buggery, a special custodial sentence comprising 16 years' imprisonment with an extended licence of one year.
    Count 6, indecent assault, eight years' imprisonment.
    Count 7, indecent assault, three years' imprisonment.
    Count 8, indecent assault, four years' imprisonment.
    Count 9, indecency with a child, three years' imprisonment.
  4. The sentences on counts 1 to 4 and 6 were ordered to run concurrently with each other. The sentence on count 8 was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence on count 4. The sentences on counts 7 and 9 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 8. Thus the total sentence properly expressed was a sentence of four years' imprisonment and a consecutive sentence of a special custodial sentence of 16 years' imprisonment with an extended licence of one year.
  5. The applicant now renews his applications for a very short extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order after refusal by the single judge. We grant those applications.
  6. The details of the case are not material for present purposes. The appellant sexually abused two young boys between 1992 and 1996. The sole ground of appeal now is not a point which was taken before the single judge. It is in the circumstances an entirely technical one. The original grounds of appeal have not been pursued but it is now correctly pointed out that the sentence on count 9 was in excess of the statutory maximum at that time of two years' imprisonment.
  7. In those circumstances, we quash the sentence on count 9 and substitute for it a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. The overall length of the sentence is entirely unaltered. The original Crown Court records were not drawn up correctly because of the way the different sentences were referred to at different passages in the sentencing remarks. The sentences are of course the sentences as they were pronounced in court. It is obviously important that the records are correct and reflect what was actually pronounced in court. The Criminal Appeal Office drew this to the attention of the Crown Court but the records do not appear thus far to have been corrected. The order for imprisonment in the Crown Court and the Crown Court Certificate of Conviction must therefore be drawn up in accordance with the sentences as we have indicated them to be in this judgment.
  8. LORD JUSTICE FRASER: We also grant you a representation order in so far as you need another one. We direct that the Certificate of Conviction which is currently on the system at document W2 and the order for imprisonment be corrected in the way identified by my Lord. Thank you very much, Miss McAddy.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010