There was no need for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to contain express wording to enable a person who was subject to a sexual offences prevention order to be required to wear an electronic monitoring device or tag when he was away from his residence. The interference with the person’s rights under the ECHR art.8 was in accordance with the law.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ELECTRONIC MONITORING EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 HUMAN RIGHTS MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS NO NEED FOR EXPRESS WORDING PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY PROHIBITION REQUIREMENT TO WEAR ELECTRONIC TAG RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.104 s.104(1)(a) s.104(5) s.106 s.106(3) s.107 s.107(2) s.108 s.108(5) s.113 s.4 Sch.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.107(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION VARIATION
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
Where an indictment was a nullity by charging an offence of breach of a sex offender order contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.2(8) when no such offence existed at that time, it was impossible to substitute an offence of breach of a sexual offences prevention order contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on the indictment as its wording precluded any such offence being alleged.
APPROPRIATENESS OF SUBSTITUTING DIFFERENT OFFENCE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 s.2(8) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICTMENT CHARGE OFFENCE NO LONGER EXISTING INDICTMENTS NULLITY s.104 s.104(1) s.104(5) s.113(1)(d) s.2 SEX OFFENDER ORDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.113 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS SUBSTITUTION
The judge had been wrong to allow a sexual offences prevention order to be varied by the adding of a condition prohibiting the offender from denying police officers access to his home to see whether other conditions of the order were being complied with.
CONDITIONS REASONABLENESS OF CONDITION ENABLING POLICE OFFICERS TO VISIT OFFENDER’S HOME TO MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER s.104 s.108(5) s.113 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.108(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
A judge had correctly imposed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection upon an offender who had committed a series of sexual assaults against several girls under the age of 13. However, given the non-penetrative nature of the offences, a minimum term of six years was too long and was replaced with a minimum of four years.
ASSESSMENT OF APPROPRIATE MINIMUM TERM CHILDREN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 EXPOSURE IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION MINIMUM TERM MULTIPLE OFFENDING POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.82A s.104 s.7(1) SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSAULT UPON CHILDREN UNDER 13 YEARS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.66
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.