Man ordered to tell police if he plans to have sex - is this fair?

[Quik]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442151/2015-07-03_FINAL_Guidance_Part_2_SOA_2003.pdf

 

Seems a rather far reaching law given it requires no conviction.

[Nagel]

So what do we know about this case? Why did the man have this Sexual Risk Order imposed on him?

 

I can't find out anything. It seems like it's all been done in secret, the complete opposite of transparent justice.

[999tigger]

They're very uninformative links, for instance...

 

These Sexual Risk Orders aren't about transparent and fair justice, they're about justice by decree.

 

I was referring to his other links which shows you the debates they had around the issue as it progressed through praliament. They are very in depth if you wnated to know their thinking. Nothing secret at all.

[the_bloke]

They're very uninformative links, for instance...

 

A bit of clicking about on the page I linked gives you:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/pdfs/ukpgaen_20140012_en.pdf

 

Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc

 

29. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“the Sexual Offences Act”) contains provision for three civil preventative orders:

 

• A sexual offences prevention order (“SOPO”) – This can be made where an offender has been convicted of a relevant sexual or violent offence and prohibitions are necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm. A SOPO prohibits the offender from doing anything described in the order;

 

• A foreign travel order (“FTO”) – This can be made where an offender has been convicted of a sexual offence involving children and there is evidence that the offender intends to commit further sexual offences involving children abroad. A FTO prohibits travel to the country or countries specified in it (or to all foreign countries, if that is what the order says); and

 

• A risk of sexual harm order (“RoSHO”) – This can be imposed where a person aged 18 or over has done a specified act in relation to a child under 16 on at least two occasions. To seek a RoSHO, it is not necessary for the defendant to have a conviction for a sexual (or any) offence. A RoSHO prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in it.

 

30. Section 113 and Schedule 5 amend the Sexual Offences Act to repeal the SOPO, FTO, and RoSHO in England and Wales and replace them with two new orders: the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order. The creation of these new orders follows an independent review of the existing orders in the Sexual Offences Act carried out by Hugh Davies QC, which was published in May 2013.13 That review concluded that the existing civil prevention orders were not fit for purpose and failed to deliver adequate protection for children from sexual abuse. The report recommended a rationalisation and strengthening of the civil orders provided for in the Sexual Offences Act. The aim of the new orders is to provide enhanced protection for both the public in the UK and children and vulnerable adults

abroad.

 

.. it looks like the part about having an order being made against an individual without them being charged of a crime actually comes from the earlier Sexual Offences Act from 2003. Feel free to Google what government brought that in.

[999tigger]

So what do we know about this case? Why did the man have this Sexual Risk Order imposed on him?

 

I can't find out anything. It seems like it's all been done in secret, the complete opposite of transparent justice.

 

These cases are primarily about child protection. Not sure such information has to be heard in open court. It wuld be normal to apply for such an order having consulted social services and child protection. The case only concerns an interim order for four months.

[Nagel]

I don't have any interest in what government brought the legislation in. I'm also not interested in its passage through Parliament, which I missed. I missed it because it was un-newsworthy and not reported.

 

What interests me is this case which is the first time one of these sexual risk orders has been reported in the news. I want to know why the man has had this imposition on his liberty and on what grounds.

 

I can't find that information anywhere.

[Quik]

These cases are primarily about child protection. Not sure such information has to be heard in open court. It wuld be normal to apply for such an order having consulted social services and child protection. The case only concerns an interim order for four months.

 

This particular case appears to have nothing to do with child protection.

[the_bloke]

I can't find that information anywhere.

 

I'd hazard a guess that, much like the name of the man in his 40's in the centre of the case, it's not being released by the court. Might even be for his own safety. He's been acquitted of rape, but he's been considered a risk enough to put an order against him. I'm not going to speculate about things we know nothing about, as the mods get itchy fingers when it comes to that.

[999tigger]

I don't have any interest in what government brought the legislation in. I'm also not interested in its passage through Parliament, which I missed. I missed it because it was un-newsworthy and not reported.

 

What interests me is this case which is the first time one of these sexual risk orders has been reported in the news. I want to know why the man has had this imposition on his liberty and on what grounds.

 

I can't find that information anywhere.

 

No, but the conversation was about these laws being brought in secretly and without discussion, when in fact that is wrong. the links probided by the_bloke shows that there was ample opportunity for people to follow the detailed debate and understand the reasoning behind them.

 

Its most likely to be anonymous because its an interim order and it involves minors.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2016 at 19:59 ----------

 

This particular case appears to have nothing to do with child protection.

 

Theres not enough information either way. The reason for amending the 2003 Act was to consolidate and make the remedies more effective in particular to protect children. the scope of the amendment was subsequently changed to include vulnerable adults and the public good. You will need to read the legislation to understand the evidential requirements that need to be met.

[Anna B]

We are the most watched, monitored, legislated against people in Europe. They listen to our telephone conversations, log our numbers, read our emails, watch our computers. They read our number plates, monitor our bank accounts, watch us with CCTV cameras on every street corner. They erode our freedoms, Kettle protesters, smear protagonists, indulge in black propaganda, control the media and are trying to muzzle the free press. And they also hold secret courts...

 

But don't worry, this is Britain not Russia, so that's alright...