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.
APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED RATHER THAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BURDEN OF PROOF CASE STATED CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 JUDICIAL REVIEW MAGISTRATES’ COURT UPHOLDING REFUSAL OF CHIEF CONSTABLE TO REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UNDER SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PROPORTIONALITY Pt 2 REVIEWS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.81(1) s.83 s.86 s.91 s.91(1)(b) s.91B s.91B(11)(b) s.91B(2) s.91B(4) s.91C s.91C(2) s.91D s.91D(1) s.91D(1)(b) s.91D(2) s.91E s.91F Sch.3 Sch.5 SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.91A STANDARD OF PROOF
It had been open to a jury to be satisfied on the evidence that alleged historic child sexual abuse had continued into the period on the indictment. It was not open to the Court of Appeal to review the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED 30 YEARS AGO COMMUNITY ORDERS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDECENCY MATTERS FOR THE JURY NO CASE TO ANSWER POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.41 Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 4 SENTENCING
In determining under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A(2) whether a defendant, who was unfit to stand trial, was guilty of voyeurism the jury had to be satisfied that he had deliberately observed another person doing a private act for the purpose of his own sexual gratification.
ACTUS REUS AUTISTIC OFFENDER UNFIT TO PLEAD OR STAND TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A(2) ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE TO BE PROVEN FOR PURPOSE OF S.4A(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 FITNESS TO PLEAD INSANITY MENTAL HEALTH Pt 2 s.104 s.104(1) s.104(1)(a) s.104(1)(b) s.104(3)(b) s.110(1)(b) s.2(1) s.3 s.4 s.4(5) s.4(5)(6) s.4A s.5 s.5(1)(a) s.5(2)(b) s.67 s.67(1)(b) s.68(1) s.68(1)(a) s.80(1)(c) s.82 Sch.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.67(1) TRIAL OF LUNATICS ACT 1883 s.2 VOYEURISM
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.
ABSENCE OF RIGHT OF REVIEW Art.1 art.2 art.27 Art.27(2) Art.4 Art.4(1) Art.4(2) Art.4(3) COMPATIBILITY OF S.82 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 WITH ART.8 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY DIRECTIVE 2004/38 ON FREE MOVEMENT FOR EU CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES 2004 art.4 DIRECTIVE 73/148 ON THE ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIONS OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 1973 art.1 EC LAW EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 EUROPEAN UNION FOREIGN TRAVEL HUMAN RIGHTS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Part 2 PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY PROPORTIONALITY Pt 2 RESTRICTIONS REVIEWS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE RISK OF REOFFENDING s.108 s.114 s.118 s.125 s.5A s.81 s.82(1) s.82(2) s.82(6) s.83 s.83(1) s.83(1)(c) s.83(5) s.83(5A) s.83(6) s.84 s.84(1) s.84(2) s.85 s.85(2) s.85(2)(b) s.86 s.86(1) s.86(2) s.86(2)(a) s.86(3) s.87(1) s.87(4) s.91 s.91(1) s.91(1)(a) s.91(2) Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.82 YOUNG OFFENDERS