An appeal against a sexual offences prevention order was dismissed as the order had not been imposed based on the fact that a specific person had been sexually abused, but on the basis of an earlier conviction, and later behaviour which posed a risk to the public of serious sexual harm.
BUGGERY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCHARGE PUBLIC PROTECTION s.104(1)(a) s.104(5) s.106(7) s.108(6) s.110 s.110(3) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.108 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
A sexual offences prevention order should have been drafted to prohibit the offender from contact with girls under 16, rather than girls under 18. Nevertheless, he was still bound by the order whilst it was in force and his breach of it, by sending text messages to a 16-year-old, encouraging her to send naked photographs, and meeting her for sexual activity, merited a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
APPLICATION OF REASONING IN R V SMITH [2012] 1 CR APP R(S) 82 BREACH OFFENDER’S CONTACT WITH VULNERABLE 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL ORDER PROHIBITING CONTACT WITH GIRLS UNDER 18 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
A sexual offences prevention order was varied because its terms were wider than was necessary and duplicated the regime already in place under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN INTERNET NECESSITY OVERLAP WITH REGIME UNDER SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 Sch.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHETHER TERMS OF SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDER WERE WIDER THAN NECESSARY
An offence of sexual assault, although a bad offence within its category, did not justify the imposition of an extended sentence. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment was substituted.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Sch.15A DRAFTING EXTENDED SENTENCES RESIDENT OF CARE HOME CARRYING OUT VIOLENT SEXUAL ATTACK ON SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER s.227 s.227(2) s.227(2)(a) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
Where an indictment was a nullity by charging an offence of breach of a sex offender order contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.2(8) when no such offence existed at that time, it was impossible to substitute an offence of breach of a sexual offences prevention order contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on the indictment as its wording precluded any such offence being alleged.
APPROPRIATENESS OF SUBSTITUTING DIFFERENT OFFENCE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 s.2(8) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICTMENT CHARGE OFFENCE NO LONGER EXISTING INDICTMENTS NULLITY s.104 s.104(1) s.104(5) s.113(1)(d) s.2 SEX OFFENDER ORDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.113 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS SUBSTITUTION
The court set out guidance on factors to be considered when making sexual offences prevention orders alongside other sentences and in respect of computer and internet use, personal contact with children and occupations or activities which were likely to bring the defendant into contact with children.
APPROPRIATE FORM OF SEXUAL PREVENTION ORDERS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENCES CRIMINAL LAW EXTENT OF PROHIBITIONS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION PAEDOPHILIA SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 Sch.4 Sch.4 para.2 Sch.4 Pt 1 SENTENCING SEXUAL GROOMING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
The court struck out a claim for an injunction prohibiting the publication in a local newspaper of the claimant’s name or any details which could lead to his identification in the context of the making of a sexual offences prevention order. He had really been seeking an order prohibiting publication of material that identified him by name, which would not have been achieved by an injunction against just one local newspaper.
ANONYMITY APPROPRIATENESS OF ORDER AGAINST ONE LOCAL NEWSPAPER CIVIL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INJUNCTIONS MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATION OF NAME PUBLISHING REPORTING RESTRICTIONS SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS STRIKING OUT STRIKING OUT CLAIM FOR INJUNCTION PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
A sexual offences prevention order was quashed where its terms were impermissibly wide. Since breach of such an order was a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, it was essential that the order was clear on its face, capable of being complied with without unreasonable difficulty and/or the assistance of a third party, and free of the real risk of unintentional breach.
BREACH CLARITY OF TERMS OF ORDER DRAFTING INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY RISK OF UNINTENTIONAL BREACH s.107(2) s.113(2) SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.104 SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
Possible confusion caused by conflicting good and bad character directions to the jury was sufficient to make an appellant’s conviction for attempting to abduct a child unsafe.
ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION OF CHILD ATTEMPTS CHARACTER CHILD ABDUCTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EFFECT OF CONFLICTING GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 HUMAN RIGHTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.101(3) s.112 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
A concurrent sentence of four years’ imprisonment for breaching a sexual offences prevention order by sending a Christmas card to a female under 16 was excessive given the relatively minor nature of the breach, and was replaced with a concurrent sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
BREACH SENDING CHRISTMAS CARD TO GIRL UNDER 16 IN BREACH OF ORDER SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SERIOUSNESS OF BREACH 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.