Magistrates had erred in dismissing the appeal of a convicted sex offender against a decision of a detective, acting on behalf of the chief constable, not to end the offender’s notification requirements.
Call now: +44 (0) 203 846 5801
Magistrates had erred in dismissing the appeal of a convicted sex offender against a decision of a detective, acting on behalf of the chief constable, not to end the offender’s notification requirements.
CARLTONA PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSTABLES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELEGATED POWERS DELEGATION DELEGATION OF CHIEF CONSTABLE’S DUTY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS POLICE Pt 3 REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 S.91B s.1(3)(b) s.104(1) s.109(3) s.14 s.2 s.2(1) s.2(3) s.2(4) s.3 s.8 s.80(1) s.81(1) s.81(3)(c) s.83 s.83(5) s.83(5)(h) s.85 s.85(1) s.86 s.87 s.88A s.91 s.91A s.91A(1) s.91A(2) s.91A(4) s.91A(5) s.91B s.91B(1) s.91B(11)(b) s.91B(2) s.91B(2)(b) s.91B(4) s.91B(8)(b) s.91B(9) s.91C s.91C(1) s.91C(2) s.91C(3)(a) s.91C(4) s.91D s.91D(1) s.91D(1)(b) s.91D(1)(c) s.91D(2) s.91D(2)(a) s.91E s.91E(1) s.91E(2) s.91E(4) s.91F s.96B s.96B(1)(a) s.97(5) Sch.3 Sch.5 SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 Pt 2 STATUTORY POWERS
Despite a substantial delay in applying for judicial review, it was in the public interest to quash a court’s decision purporting to lift a sexual offender’s notification requirements. The court lacked power to make that order, and the grant of relief upheld the rule of law and ensured that all applications to life notification requirements were dealt with under the same procedure.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT LIFTING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON SEXUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT HAVING POWER TO DO SO DELAY EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN BRINGING JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY Pt 1 PUBLIC INTEREST RULE OF LAW s.104(1) s.109(3) s.81 s.81(1) s.81(3) s.82(1) s.91 s.91A s.91A(1) s.91B s.91B(1) s.91B(2)(a) s.91B(8)(b) s.91C s.91D(2) s.91E Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.80
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
A finding that a defendant did not pose a risk of serious harm to the public within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.229 did not preclude the court from imposing a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.104 on that defendant.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.229 EFFECT OF FINDING OF ABSENCE OF RISK OF SERIOUS HARM UNDER S.229 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 JURISDICTION RISK OF REOFFENDING s.104(1) s.106(3) s.224(3) s.225 Sch.3 SENTENCING SENTENCING POWERS SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
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.