R v JOSE SEPULVIDA-GOMEZ (2019)
Despite inadmissible opinion evidence from prosecution witnesses having been adduced before the jury, convictions for sexual assault and assault by penetration were safe.
Despite inadmissible opinion evidence from prosecution witnesses having been adduced before the jury, convictions for sexual assault and assault by penetration were safe.
The court upheld a sexual harm prevention order, imposed for an indefinite duration, where an offender had received concurrent suspended prison sentences of 18 months after pleading guilty to three offences of possession of indecent photographs of a child and one offence of possessing an extreme pornographic image. Although the order had been imposed in […]
An offender’s appeal against the variation of his SHPO to prohibit foreign travel was dismissed, as the police were unable to monitor the risk he presented when he was abroad and their duty to protect children and vulnerable people from the offender included those both in and out of the UK.
Certain conditions of a sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender who had committed sexual offences against children, which restricted his use of computers, mobile phones with internet access and remote storage, were quashed as they were disproportionate, unenforceable and did not give effect to the statutory purpose.
It was unjust for a Crown Court judge to order that a foreign travel order begin afresh from the date on which he had dismissed an appeal by an offender against that order. The order was to run from the date on which it had originally been made.