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 >> Bell, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 55 (16 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/55.html
Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 55
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE ROYCE
RECORDER OF LONDON
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION)
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| v | ||
| ALEX JAMES BELL |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms S Bramley appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE ROYCE: Alex James Bell is aged 25. At South Eastern Surrey Magistrates' Court on 29th October 2007, he pleaded guilty to five offences of intentional exposure. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence, where he appeared on 12th December, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on each count concurrent.
- What had happened was this: between 27th March and 8th September 2007, he had intentionally exposed himself to five different women on five separate occasions. Each woman was alone at the time of the offence and either walking in an alleyway, alongside a park or simply along a road. On only one occasion, offence five, did the victim state that the appellant's penis was erect. There were two offences where the victims were aged only 15. It is unnecessary to recite the circumstances of each offence. It is clear that the victims were shocked or angry and upset about what had taken place. When in due course he was arrested, he accepted the allegations but said the offences were not sexually motivated.
- The Sentencing Guidelines Council suggest that for offences of this nature, assuming no aggravating or mitigating factors, a community order is the appropriate sentence. There is reference in the guidelines to repeat offender where it is suggested that the range of sentence should be between four weeks and 26 weeks custody. There appears in this case to have been some discussion between counsel and the judge as to whether this offender was a repeat offender. No conclusion was reached on that topic.
- We do not consider that this appellant can properly be regarded as a repeat offender. This was his first court appearance for any offence of this type.
- We have also been referred to a decision of this court, R v Whitton [2006] EWCA Crim 3229. That was a case in which an appellant had committed nine such offences. Six of them involved girls under the age of 18. He received a three year community order with a supervision requirement. The Court of Appeal considered that that was an appropriate sentence.
- We bear in mind that this appellant has already spent some time in custody, just over one month. We reach the conclusion that a community order would have been the appropriate sentence in this case and we therefore quash the sentence of imprisonment and substitute therefore a community order with a two year supervision requirement. The consequence of that will be that the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will reduce from ten years to five years. This appeal is accordingly allowed.