The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused to add a new probation condition to the ten-year post-release supervision order imposed on G.K., while clarifying that he must remain under the supervision of a probation and welfare officer throughout that period.
G.K. had pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault before his trial and a related threat-to-kill offence was taken into account. He was sentenced in January 2007 to life imprisonment, backdated to 13 March 2006.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded in July 2008 that life imprisonment was an error in principle. It substituted a 16-year sentence, with the final three years suspended, and imposed ten years of post-release supervision.
The later difficulty concerned the formal wording of that supervision order. Section 29 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 provides for supervision by a probation and welfare officer and allows conditions to be specified to secure that supervision. The perfected order stated only that G.K. was subject to ten years of post-release supervision and did not set out any conditions.
The DPP asked the court to amend it by adding a commonly used requirement that G.K. obey the lawful instructions of any probation and welfare officer assigned to him.
The court accepted that a final order can sometimes be corrected after it has been formally completed, but only to reflect what the original court actually decided and intended. It could not identify anything in the 2008 judgment showing that the judges had intended to impose the proposed instruction-obedience condition.
Accordingly, that part of the DPP's application was refused.
However, the court was satisfied that the earlier judgment clearly intended G.K. to be under the supervision of a probation and welfare officer for ten years after release. It therefore amended the order to state that expressly.
The ruling does not alter G.K.'s custodial sentence or create additional supervisory conditions beyond what the earlier judgment can be shown to have intended.