PROPORTIONALITY

The terms of a sexual offences prevention order imposed on an offender who had been sentenced for voyeurism, which included an almost blanket ban on using the internet, were changed where its terms did not conform to the guidance given in R. v Smith (Steven) [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 with the result that it was unworkable and disproportionate.

A claimant failed to show that disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates of an allegation of sexual assault of which he had been acquitted was disproportionate and inaccurate.

Certain conditions of a sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender who had committed sexual offences against children, which restricted his use of computers, mobile phones with internet access and remote storage, were quashed as they were disproportionate, unenforceable and did not give effect to the statutory purpose.

A person subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 who wished to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court to uphold a refusal to review the notification requirements should bring an appeal by way of case stated rather than pursue an application for judicial review.

A doctor’s rights under ECHR art.8 would not be breached by the police disclosing information which had been unlawfully obtained during their investigation into a patient’s allegation of sexual assault against him to the General Medical Council for the purposes of its inquiry into the doctor’s fitness to practise.

A sex offender’s statutory obligation to provide bank account, debit and credit card details under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 reg.12 was a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate policy objective of enabling police to be better able to trace offenders who had failed to comply with their notification requirements. As such that obligation was not incompatible with an offender’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 in subjecting certain sex offenders to notification requirements indefinitely without the opportunity for review. As a matter of principle, an offender was entitled to have the question of whether the notification requirements continued to serve a legitimate purpose determined on a review.

It was compatible with a child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 to convict him of rape contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.5 in circumstances where the agreed basis of plea established that his offence also fell properly within the ambit of s.13.

The Court of Appeal gave guidelines for imposing extended periods of licence under s.85 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.