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
A disqualification from working with children was inappropriate where the offender posed a low risk of harm to young girls only and it was therefore replaced with a sexual offences prevention order reflecting this.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES ACT 2000 s.28 DISQUALIFICATION FROM WORKING WITH CHILDREN REASONABLENESS OF DISQUALIFICATION FROM WORKING WITH CHILDREN RISK OF REOFFENDING s.104(2) s.106(3) Sch.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 TEACHERS YOUNG PERSONS
It was inappropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.225 on an offender convicted of making indecent photographs of children, because the link between the offending act of downloading images and the possible harm to children was too remote to satisfy the requirement that the offender’s reoffending would cause serious harm.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.225 CRIMINAL LAW IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN LINK BETWEEN DOWNLOADING IMAGES AND HARM NEED FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION AND APPROPRIATENESS OF SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS RISK OF REOFFENDING s.104(2) s.106 s.106(3) s.143(1) s.224 s.224(3) s.225(1)(b) s.229 s.229(1) s.229(2) s.229(3) Sch.3 Sch.5 SENTENCING SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
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.