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

[999tigger]

That form should be established in a court of law though. Not in a coppers mind.

 

That's a pretty fundemental principle of justice.

 

It has to go through magistrates and you can appeal it.

[tinfoilhat]

He may be a dangerous individual but all we know from the info in the public domain is he was accused of rape, the first trial resulted in a situation that required a retrial and he was found not guilty at the retrial. He's then had this order slapped on him. Even if its all for very good reasons its hardly justice seen to be done is it?

 

No it's shocking. Further more, unless there's an alarm on his winkle and he's not very discrete how will the old bill know? If he's really a danger - name him. If I was in shoes and totally innocent Id seriously consider going to the papers anyway.

[Dr Afzal]

tinfoilhat;11278175]No it's shocking. Further more, unless there's an alarm on his winkle and he's not very discrete how will the old bill know? If he's really a danger - name him. If I was in shoes and totally innocent Id seriously consider going to the papers anyway.

 

Maybe, but can he afford to take the risk? It`s 5 years in jail for failing to notify according to the report. There may be other people in his circle that know about the order. People talk,so called friends can have grudges and someone could set him up for 5 years of porridge.

 

 

 

[/color]

I'm not sure.

 

It looks like a bit of totalitariamism to me.

 

Justice is based upon fairness, equality and evidence. These orders have none of those characteristics.

 

That`s because it is injustice

Edited January 24, 2016 by Dr Afzal

[Cyclone]

The thread and original question was about whether this kind of punishment was fair or not. I should know because I started the thread with this, below.

 

 

 

 

Also there is absolutely no suggestion that the case has anything to do with minors or age of consent. The police want 24 hours notice before he has sex. Now they're hardly going to ask for notice of under-age sex, are they?

 

It's just all very odd and an unsettling way to perform justice.

 

To be clear, they want 24 hrs before he has a new partner, not every time.

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2016 at 09:12 ----------

 

That form should be established in a court of law though. Not in a coppers mind.

 

That's a pretty fundemental principle of justice.

 

Presumably they have enough "evidence" to have convinced a magistrate. The police don't issue the order, they only request it.

[Penistone999]

Today a man who was acquitted of a rape charge was ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex. The court imposed a 'sexual risk order', a new measure which means if he breaks the conditions he can be imprisoned for 5 years.

 

I had never heard of these measures before and they sound harsh and unfair. They also sound alien to our system of justice and the concept of innocent until proved guilty. The man is innocent of any crime, yet he's having this threat to his liberty and I don't understand why.

 

Full story here, thoughts anyone? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

 

What i find wrong here is this bloke was found NOT guilty , so was not convicted of any offence what so ever. So why has this order been place on him. ?

[Dr Afzal]

To be clear, they want 24 hrs before he has a new partner, not every time.

Presumably they have enough "evidence" to have convinced a magistrate. The police don't issue the order, they only request it.

 

Is that from a different media report that you have seen? I have just had another look at the BBC report in the OP link. It says-

 

requires the man to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police

 

I am not so sure. Is it open to different interpretations?

[sgtkate]

What i find wrong here is this bloke was found NOT guilty , so was not convicted of any offence what so ever. So why has this order been place on him. ?

 

Penistone for once we agree totally. In a weird way, I'd be happier if the guy had this order placed on him while his case was going through the court system and then removed once he's found not guilty!

[Dr Afzal]

What i find wrong here is this bloke was found NOT guilty , so was not convicted of any offence what so ever. So why has this order been place on him. ?

 

Basically this was presented by in the OP 50 odd posts ago...

 

Quote

The man is innocent of any crime, yet he's having this threat to his liberty and I don't understand why.

[Harrystottle]

It's about the CPS not able to do their job properly so having to circumnavigate the justice system to keep tabs on/make someone's life very difficult.

 

Bingo! You win the ten quid.

[redfox]

A court has determined that the order is appropriate based on the evidence it was provided with. If he wants to appeal he can.

 

Courts determine this sort of thing fairly frequently - ASBO for example or a sheffield example a GangBo - which was laughed at by those who were the subject of it but they got a bit fed up being locked up for breach and they served a purpose of sorts.

 

I am not sure how you can blame the CPS for a jury acquitting this man - we dont know the facts at all - I wouldn't rely on any news report of any case - Long experience has taught me unless your present in court and hear the evidence you can only guess at whats taken place.