R v Babloo Miah [2026] EWCA Crim 129
Summary
A defendant’s Notification Requirements are not the decisive factor when determining the duration of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO), but simply one of a range of factors to be taken into account when determining what is necessary and proportionate.
Background
Between July and November 2020, Mr Miah (BM) engaged in online sexual communications with a decoy vigilante group posing as a 14 year old girl. Throughout these communications, BM sent indecent images to the ‘child’ and suggested booking a hotel room for them to have sexual intercourse.
On 21 April 2024, BM pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, attempting to cause a child to watch or look at an image of sexual activity, and attempting to cause/incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity. He received a sentence of 20 months imprisonment suspended for two years. BM was also made subject to Notification Requirements under Part 2 Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 10 years, as well as a 10 year SHPO.
Appeal
BM appealed his sentence on the basis that the duration of his SHPO was ‘manifestly excessive’. He argued that the Crown Court Judge had wrongly determined the period of the SHPO based solely on the duration of his Notification Requirements, rather than complying with their obligation to consider what was necessary and proportionate based on the risk that he posed.
Law
There is much conflicting case law in respect of the weight to be placed on a defendant’s Notification Requirements when determining the duration of their SHPO. In Hammond [2008] EWCA Crim 1358 it was held that it would “normally be important that the terms of any SOPO were consistent with the duration of the notification requirements” and in Stevens [2023] EWCA Crim 397 it was re-iterated that “the two should be in line with each other”. Other case law including Hanna [2023] EWCA Crim 33 state that it is an ‘error’ to take the view that the two must be the same length.
The Court of Appeal in this matter undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant case law when coming to their conclusion.
Decision
The Court of Appeal clarified the position and confirmed that a defendant’s Notification Requirements should not be the ‘deciding factor’ in respect of the length of SHPO to be imposed. However, it is one of the factors that a Judge should consider when undertaking their obligation to consider what is necessary and proportionate. The Court of Appeal reduced the length of BM’s SHPO to five years due to factors including his previous good character, absence of offending since his arrest four years earlier and his cooperation with police throughout the investigation. The court emphasised that if a risk was still present at the end of those five years, an application to extend the SHPO could be made.
Comment
Police forces should be aware of the implications of this judgment and not fall into a false sense of security where a defendant is facing both Notification Requirements under Part 2, and a SHPO. Prosecutors and police should ensure that their arguments in respect of a SHPO’s duration are robust and focus on the risk that an individual poses to the public and the necessity for any SHPO to protect from that risk, rather than relying on an assumption the SHPO will simply be made for the same length as the Notification Requirements.
In my experience, the evidence provide in support of a SHPO application often focuses on the risk and necessity of the order and prohibitions, without proper consideration as to why the duration sought is appropriate. This is something that must be kept in mind, particularly in light of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision.
For guidance on any aspects of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, please get in touch with our expert emergency services solicitors.