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 judge had not erred in refusing an application for an interim non-disclosure order where the interests of publishers and the public under the ECHR art.6 and art.10 outweighed the interests of a person under art.8 who had been arrested but not formally charged following an investigation into allegations of child sex grooming and prostitution.
art.6 art.8 art.8(2) CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981 s.4(2) CORRECTNESS OF REFUSAL TO IMPOSE INTERIM NON-DISCLOSURE ORDER ON PUBLISHERS CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.10 HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT NEWSPAPERS NON-DISCLOSURE ORDERS OPEN JUSTICE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.4 SUSPECT ARRESTED BUT NOT CHARGED WITH CHILD SEX OFFENCES
The court gave guidance regarding the assessment of a complainant’s mental capacity in a criminal trial when the alleged offences involved proof of a lack of consent.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY BURDEN OF PROOF CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A EXPERT WITNESSES MENTAL CAPACITY MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 s.2 MENTAL HEALTH PERSONS LACKING CAPACITY s.1 s.1(2) s.2(1) s.2(4) s.30 s.30(2)(a) s.31 s.31(2)(a) s.32 s.32(2)(a) s.33 s.33(2)(a) s.4 s.4(5) s.42 s.44 s.74 s.75 s.76 SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES INVOLVING PROOF OF LACK OF CONSENT STANDARD OF PROOF
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 accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.
ACCUSED MISTAKENLY CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN ACCUSED UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT OF MAN ACTUS REUS OF INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN NOT ESTABLISHED BY INDECENT ASSAULT OF A MAN. BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A FITNESS TO PLEAD INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MISTAKE RETRIALS s.15(1) s.16 s.16(1)(b) s.16(4) s.161 s.3 s.4 s.41 s.4A(2) s.4A(2)(b) s.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) SUMMING UP UNSAFE CONVICTIONS
It was impermissible for the Crown to prosecute a charge of indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) in circumstances where the conduct upon which that charge was based was only an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 in respect of which no prosecution could be commenced under s.6(1) of the Act by virtue of s.37(2) of, and Sch.2 to, that Act.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ALTERNATIVE PROSECUTION FOR INDECENT ASSAULT IMPERMISSIBLE AVOIDANCE OF STATUTORY TIME BAR FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCE CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROWN PROSECUTION DELAYED COMPLAINTS INDECENT ASSAULT LIMITATION PERIODS LIMITATIONS MINORS POLICIES PROSECUTION OF DIFFERENT CHARGE IN RELIANCE ON SAME CRIMINAL CONDUCT PROSECUTIONS s.10 s.14 S.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.37 S.37 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.37(1) s.37(1)(2) s.37(2) s.4 s.44 s.5 s.5(1) s.6 s.6(1) S.6(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.7 Sch.2 para.10(a) SCH.2 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH GIRL UNDER 16 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) TIME BARS TIME LIMIT FOR CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE EXPIRED ULTRA VIRES