A judge’s refusal to hold a fact-finding hearing to clarify whether a father, who had been allowed unsupervised contact with his children, had committed indecent assault many years earlier could not be criticised.
A judge’s refusal to hold a fact-finding hearing to clarify whether a father, who had been allowed unsupervised contact with his children, had committed indecent assault many years earlier could not be criticised.
CHILDREN CRIMINAL LAW FAMILY LAW FAMILY PROCEEDINGS HEARINGS INDECENT ASSAULT PARENTAL CONTACT SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
There might be occasions, in which a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.104 was made to protect a child of a defendant, where the family court’s jurisdiction should be reflected in the order because of the additional flexibility it provided. In the circumstances a s.104 order was varied to provide that a father, who had abused his daughter, was prohibited from seeing his son only until the son reached the age of 16.
ART.8 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CRIMINAL LAW FAMILIAL CHILD SEX OFFENCES FAMILY LAW HUMAN RIGHTS NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPOSITION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS PARENTAL CONTACT PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE S.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104(1) s.104(1)(b) s.106 s.106(3) s.107 s.108 s.108(1) s.108(2) s.108(6) SCH.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS VARIATION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.