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
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
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
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
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 in subjecting certain sex offenders to notification requirements indefinitely without the opportunity for review. As a matter of principle, an offender was entitled to have the question of whether the notification requirements continued to serve a legitimate purpose determined on a review.
ABSENCE OF RIGHT OF REVIEW Art.1 art.2 art.27 Art.27(2) Art.4 Art.4(1) Art.4(2) Art.4(3) COMPATIBILITY OF S.82 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 WITH ART.8 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY DIRECTIVE 2004/38 ON FREE MOVEMENT FOR EU CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES 2004 art.4 DIRECTIVE 73/148 ON THE ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIONS OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 1973 art.1 EC LAW EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 EUROPEAN UNION FOREIGN TRAVEL HUMAN RIGHTS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Part 2 PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY PROPORTIONALITY Pt 2 RESTRICTIONS REVIEWS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE RISK OF REOFFENDING s.108 s.114 s.118 s.125 s.5A s.81 s.82(1) s.82(2) s.82(6) s.83 s.83(1) s.83(1)(c) s.83(5) s.83(5A) s.83(6) s.84 s.84(1) s.84(2) s.85 s.85(2) s.85(2)(b) s.86 s.86(1) s.86(2) s.86(2)(a) s.86(3) s.87(1) s.87(4) s.91 s.91(1) s.91(1)(a) s.91(2) Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.82 YOUNG OFFENDERS
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 compatible with a child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 to convict him of rape contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.5 in circumstances where the agreed basis of plea established that his offence also fell properly within the ambit of s.13.
art.6(2) art.8 BASIS OF PLEA CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONDUCT FALLING WITHIN AMBIT OF S.5 AND S.13 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 CRIMINAL CHARGES CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.6(1) HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTIFICATION LAWFULNESS OF PROSECUTOR’S DECISION TO PROSECUTE UNDER S.5 Part 2 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PROPORTIONALITY RAPE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.13 s.9 s.9(1)(c)(ii) Sch.1 Sch.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.5 STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG OFFENDERS
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