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 sexual offences prevention order was quashed where its terms were impermissibly wide. Since breach of such an order was a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, it was essential that the order was clear on its face, capable of being complied with without unreasonable difficulty and/or the assistance of a third party, and free of the real risk of unintentional breach.
BREACH CLARITY OF TERMS OF ORDER DRAFTING INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY RISK OF UNINTENTIONAL BREACH s.107(2) s.113(2) SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 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.