A person subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 who wished to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court to uphold a refusal to review the notification requirements should bring an appeal by way of case stated rather than pursue an application for judicial review.
APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED RATHER THAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BURDEN OF PROOF CASE STATED CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 JUDICIAL REVIEW MAGISTRATES’ COURT UPHOLDING REFUSAL OF CHIEF CONSTABLE TO REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UNDER SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PROPORTIONALITY Pt 2 REVIEWS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.81(1) s.83 s.86 s.91 s.91(1)(b) s.91B s.91B(11)(b) s.91B(2) s.91B(4) s.91C s.91C(2) s.91D s.91D(1) s.91D(1)(b) s.91D(2) s.91E s.91F Sch.3 Sch.5 SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.91A STANDARD OF PROOF
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
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.