The grounds of appeal against sentence raise the issues of whether there was "forced/uninvited entry into the victim's home" and whether the victim was "particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances".
We are satisfied that in this case the judge was wrong to say that in this case there was "forced/uninvited entry into victim's home". This is because A was asleep in a bedroom in a flat to which the appellant had been invited for a party. It is true that he went into B's bedroom where A was asleep without permission, but that is different from "forced/uninvited entry into victim's home" because the appellant had been invited into the flat. This was not a case of entering into a separated one room flat or bedsit.
On the other hand we are sure that the judge was right to find that A was "particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances". The personal circumstances were that A had drunk half a bottle of wine and was asleep in her boyfriend's bed in his bedroom. A person in such circumstances is particularly vulnerable because they are defenceless, compare R v Bunyan  EWCA Crim 872 at paragraph 25...
So far as is material a SHPO cannot be imposed unless it is necessary for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, see section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003... In our judgment a condition without limit in time prohibiting the appellant from taking any employment, freelance or otherwise, or occupation which involved him being alone in a room with any female, without providing 24 hours' notice to his offender management team, unless in the course of normal life, is an onerous condition.