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
Where a person subject to a sexual offences prevention order had pleaded guilty to an indictment which mistakenly alleged that he had breached a sex offender order contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.2(8), the Court of Appeal found the indictment defective and quashed the conviction. It declined to annul the conviction and return the case to the Crown Court, as it had not heard argument on whether the indictment had been so defective as to render the proceedings a nullity. The Crown Prosecution Service was asked to ensure that on the next occasion the issue arose, the court was able to deal with the nullity issue having heard full argument.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 s.2(8) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFECTS INDICTMENT ALLEGING BREACH OF SEX OFFENDER ORDER INDICTMENTS NULLITY OFFENDER SUBJECT TO SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDER s.113 s.2 SEX OFFENDER ORDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
Convictions on charges of rape and living on prostitution brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were quashed where the indictment had alleged that the offences had occurred between dates straddling the entry into force of the Act, and there was no evidence to show under which statutory regime the offences had fallen.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.225 CRIMINAL LAW CROWN UNABLE TO PROVE WHETHER OFFENCES COMMITTED BEFORE OR AFTER ENTRY INTO FORCE OF SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 DATE OF OFFENCE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION s.113 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 SUPPLY OF DRUGS TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 s.55
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
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.