Mahmood [2019] EWCA Crim 788

The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of possession of indecent photos of a child and one of possessing an extreme pornographic image, He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months on each count with community requirements, along with an indefinite SHPO.

The only ground of appeal was in respect of the indefinite nature of the SHPO. It appeared that defence counsel did not make any submissions as to the terms or length of the order and the judge did not give explicit reasons for the making of it.

The appellant was an Imam and said that members of the community had sent him pictures with requests to check whether recent circumcisions of their children required medical attention. Images depicting a young child in a sex act with an animal and a naked child in a degrading act he said had just come onto his phone. He denied any sexual gratification and that he had made a “true and honest mistake”.

The PSR reported that he continued as an Imam and hoped to continue his work with children which caused concern, he also failed to disclose that he lived in shared accommodation with a family including two children. As to the question of a SHPO it was said that the risk of serious harm was medium but in the absence of appropriate restrictions the risk of serious harm would be imminent and high.

Held: caution and consideration are required before imposing an indefinite SHPO and the court must look critically at the particular circumstances of the case to determine whether it is justified. The PSR evidences that the appellant totally refused to acknowledge his offending behaviour or its causes, this is of concern due to his status, connections and access to children. The risk is therefore a continuing one and an indefinite order justified. While the sentencing judge did not impose the order in accordance with the clear mandate of the CPR it should still be upheld.