An order for an extended licence under s.86 Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was preventive not punitive, and the addition of such an order to a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed before 1 October 1991 did not violate Art.7 European Convention on Human Rights.Appeal against a sentence for indecent assault, in particular the extension of the appellant's ('BR') licence. BR pleaded guilty to four offences of indecent assault, which occurred as part of a course of conduct between 1976 and 1982. In addition to a two year custodial sentence, the judge extended BR's licence under s.86 Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The court had to consider whether that extension was a retrospective penalty and therefore in breach of Art.7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.HELD: (1) Applying the criteria in Welch v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 247, an order for an extended licence was preventive not punitive. The order's operation related to the "execution of the sentence" and was part of "the machinery for carrying out the penalty". The addition of such an order, to a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed before 1 October 1991, did not impose a heavier penalty than was available when the offence was committed and did not violate Art.7 of the Convention. (2) It followed that JT (2003) EWCA Crim 1011 was wrongly decided and could be considered as having been decided per incuriam. JT was a sentence appeal, where only the appellant was represented and the court in that case had cited only one of the cases considered in the present appeal. Had the court in JT been provided with the same information in the present case, it would have come to the same conclusion.Appeal dismissed.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2199