Man acquitted of rape cannot have sex without informing police 24 hours in advance
BBC News
A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex. The man, in his 40s, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted in 2015 at a retrial after claiming the alleged victim had consented.
An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.
It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
The order - which was drawn up by magistrates in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and extended in York - reads: "You must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth.
"You must do this at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place."
It also contains restrictions on his use of the internet and mobile phone devices and requires him to inform officers of any change of address.
A further court hearing in May will decide whether the interim order should be made into a full order, which has a minimum duration of two years and can last indefinitely.
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.
They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.
An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.
It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
The order - which was drawn up by magistrates in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and extended in York - reads: "You must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth.
"You must do this at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place."
It also contains restrictions on his use of the internet and mobile phone devices and requires him to inform officers of any change of address.
A further court hearing in May will decide whether the interim order should be made into a full order, which has a minimum duration of two years and can last indefinitely.
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.
They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. It also sounds like something straight out of 1984; I almost went to check the date to make sure it wasn't 1st April. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted or never even arrested for in the first place?
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
another example of bureacracy and the police continually going after the small man. im glad they are suffering cuts, completely useless in this country. when the majority of people have break ins and phone them, they are fobbed off. *******
Original post by a noble chance
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted?
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted?
Good stuff!! He needs to pay and exposed to every women he was a rapist catch anyone bedding him!! lol
I don't usually support human rights, but this shall be an exception. They have totally denied him a right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty and pretty much made him guilty without any possibility of proving otherwise.
Original post by sadly
Good stuff!! He needs to pay and exposed to every women he was a rapist catch anyone bedding him!! lol
He was acquitted...
So do they need to sign a consent form on the dotted line? 
Original post by 0123456543210
I don't usually support human rights.
rofl, tsr is just getting weirder and weirder
Original post by a noble chance
He was acquitted...
Oh sorry I didn't see that...BUT STILL he was most likely guilty but they had a lack of evidence and not found guilty because this doesn't happen to others...why him? suspicious....
Tories encroach on civil liberties and like paternalism. In other news, bears still **** in the wood.
Original post by sadly
Oh sorry I didn't see that...BUT STILL he was most likely guilty but they had a lack of evidence and not found guilty because this doesn't happen to others...why him? suspicious....
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
The only way we can justifiably come to a conclusion on the matter is by trial, and he was acquitted. We operate on the basis that someone is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. 1000 years of judicial provision does not and cannot be allowed to boil down to the simpleton's maxim that there's 'no smoke without fire' and that certain people should have Orwellian measures imposed upon them because some people believe that they were 'most likely' or 'might' have been guilty in spite of an acquittal; that's outrageous.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by driftawaay
rofl, tsr is just getting weirder and weirder
I bet this person hasn't had to be exposed to systems which don't believe in human rights and doesn't realise what living without them means.
Original post by a noble chance
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
The only way we can justifiably come to a conclusion on the matter is by trial, and he was acquitted. We operate on the basis that someone is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. 1000 years of judicial provision does not and cannot be allowed to boil down to the simpleton's paradigm that there's 'no smoke without fire' and that certain people should have Orwellian measures imposed upon them because they were 'most likely' or 'might' have been guilty in spite of an acquittal; that's outrageous.
The only way we can justifiably come to a conclusion on the matter is by trial, and he was acquitted. We operate on the basis that someone is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. 1000 years of judicial provision does not and cannot be allowed to boil down to the simpleton's paradigm that there's 'no smoke without fire' and that certain people should have Orwellian measures imposed upon them because they were 'most likely' or 'might' have been guilty in spite of an acquittal; that's outrageous.
?? True I'm a simpleton but unlike yourself, I'm not trying to appear as some overeducated superiority complex sort of person thank you very much, also c;ear;y there is more to this case than your title has lead us to believe I will still remain with my opinions and wonder why he of all people has to inform the police when many cases of false rape do not have this sort of thing......suspicious.. .
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sadly
also c;ear;y there is more to this case than your title has lead us to believe I will still remain with my opinions and wonder why he of all people has to inform the police when many cases of false rape do not have this sort of thing......suspicious.. .
The article is linked in the OP. It is also pasted into the OP.
So your reason for supporting a man acquitted of rape having the degrading measure of having to inform the police 24 hours in advance of any sexual activity is that it doesn't happen very often in rape cases and that therefore they must have good reason to believe he's a risk.
The measure being used against him only came in to force last year, so inevitably it won't have been used for many previous rape cases. The only other information available to you is that he was acquitted of rape. A court did not find enough evidence to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he had committed rape. If a court didn't have enough evidence, neither did the police. This is good enough for me to believe that he should not have this measure imposed upon him; it makes a mockery of our trial system and goes against our legal tradition of presumption of innocence.
It's also an Orwellian precedent for other areas of law. Someone says you cut them with a knife; you didn't. 'Well, they had a cut and they said you did, so just to be on the safe side you'll need to be accompanied by a police officer on every trip outside your house and conform to a curfew in the evenings for a few months'.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by neal95
another example of bureacracy and the police continually going after the small man. im glad they are suffering cuts, completely useless in this country. when the majority of people have break ins and phone them, they are fobbed off. *******
Original post by a noble chance
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. It also sounds like something straight out of 1984; I almost went to check the date to make sure it wasn't 1st April. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted or never even arrested for in the first place?
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. It also sounds like something straight out of 1984; I almost went to check the date to make sure it wasn't 1st April. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted or never even arrested for in the first place?
Not sure why I'm tagged here but makes sense if he's potentially not disclosed an Std or expressed intent to serially assault someone without carrying it out. Not crimes in themselves but show he poses a risk. It's hard to pass judgement without full detail, and not something I'm willing to do.
So do the police turn up on the woman's doorstep and verify with her the proposed sex act(s) before they approve them? Or do they just give him a pair of handcuffs to handcuff himself to the bed with after finishing up so they can take DNA evidence to prove that the woman he said he was going to shag was the woman he actually ended up shagging?
Original post by Chaz W
Original post by redferry
Not sure why I'm tagged here but makes sense if he's potentially not disclosed an Std or expressed intent to serially assault someone without carrying it out. Not crimes in themselves but show he poses a risk. It's hard to pass judgement without full detail, and not something I'm willing to do.
Do you mean the authorities are aware he has an std but believe he won't tell potential partners? Surely if that was the reason everyone with an std who is believed to potentially be promiscuous would be under this draconian order? If the authorities aren't aware about an std...well then it's non-starter.
As for the latter possibility, if he does have an intent to be a rapist but apparently isn't one in this case (innocent until guilty does exist), I'd have thought they'd have proof of an actual threat and be able to do more than just ask him to tell them when he wants sex, because if he genuinely wants to rape...he is unlikely to let the authorities know 24hr's in advance.
But yes...I suppose they must have some unusual serious evidence which for some reason isn't strong enough to confront him with in a court of law, but is strong enough to make them believe he is....something...I;m not sure what, because if they believe he is a threat to women, their requirements do nothing to stop that threat. So....I'm unsure, I'm not quite sure what requiring him to tell them his sexy time schedule actually achieves.
Btw your response just made me ponder the issue, this isn't some post against you lol, I just quoted you by reflex.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?