Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Man acquitted of rape cannot have sex without informing police 24 hours in advance Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    A court will only impose an interim sexual risk order only if it considers it "just to do so" (s122E(3) of the ACPA 2014). For such an extensive and restrictive order to be considered, there must have been some considerable body of persuasive evidence for the court to consider it just to impose such an order—and the court has seriously engaged the order on two separate occasions, once when it was made and again when it was renewed. It seems as if you are not considering the complexity of the issue and you are assuming a very simplistic scenario of acquittal and presumed innocence. This is seemingly not the case.

    S112A of the ACPA amends (only slightly) s123 of SOA 2003 which was exclusively concerned with protecting children (s123(3)). This provision of the ACPA therefore is inherently protective and designed to be mainly protective to vulnerable persons. We do not know the particulars of the acquitted case, but we must assume that the novelty of the order and the provenance and nature of the provision utilised that the court has a very persuasive body of evidence indicating a pressing need which has bound them to this course of action. This is not your ordinary case of "lad accused of rape after meeting a bird in a club and found not guilty, but some court decided to ban him from having sex" which likely the people in this thread have envisioned by the description offered by the BBC.
    I wouldn't make any of these assumptions. Those who like law and sausages shouldn't watch either being made.

    The procedure does not assume an interim, interim order so why was an interim order made for a short period that didn't last until the full hearing which was then extended. The likeliest reason is that the respondent didn't attend or wasn't represented at the first hearing.

    The case was heard before justices. An order as novel and restrictive as this should have gone before the stipe (district judge).

    The hearing took place in Northallerton but only one of the Northallerton papers has the story and the nationals are repeating the information from the Northern Echo. The Johnson Press title hasn't got it at all. No submissions by the defence are reported and there was no comment by the defence solicitor after the hearing. The December hearing wasn't reported at all.

    Assuming the man had not been in custody until his two trials, the Crown Court would have imposed bail conditions. Again assuming those bail conditions did not include similar provisions why was it now "just" to impose these conditions which a Crown Court judge had not considered necessary at a time when the man was awaiting trial for the offences of which he has now been acquitted?

    Any lawyer with half an ounce of common sense would be straight off to the Crown Court with an appeal against the interim order.

    I wonder if the order will survive next week.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I wouldn't make any of these assumptions. Those who like law and sausages shouldn't watch either being made.

    The procedure does not assume an interim, interim order so why was an interim order made for a short period that didn't last until the full hearing which was then extended. The likeliest reason is that the respondent didn't attend or wasn't represented at the first hearing.

    The case was heard before justices. An order as novel and restrictive as this should have gone before the stipe (district judge).

    The hearing took place in Northallerton but only one of the Northallerton papers has the story and the nationals are repeating the information from the Northern Echo. The Johnson Press title hasn't got it at all. No submissions by the defence are reported and there was no comment by the defence solicitor after the hearing. The December hearing wasn't reported at all.

    Assuming the man had not been in custody until his two trials, the Crown Court would have imposed bail conditions. Again assuming those bail conditions did not include similar provisions why was it now "just" to impose these conditions which a Crown Court judge had not considered necessary at a time when the man was awaiting trial for the offences of which he has now been acquitted?

    Any lawyer with half an ounce of common sense would be straight off to the Crown Court with an appeal against the interim order.

    I wonder if the order will survive next week.
    I was going to suggest that your superior legal awareness did not seem to lead you to the same conclusions as that poster at all - even that he was 'not considering the complexity of the issue' :teehee: - (but then my amateurism here requires a bit of time to fully work through your comprehensive post!)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I wouldn't make any of these assumptions. Those who like law and sausages shouldn't watch either being made.

    The procedure does not assume an interim, interim order so why was an interim order made for a short period that didn't last until the full hearing which was then extended. The likeliest reason is that the respondent didn't attend or wasn't represented.

    The case was heard before justices. An order as novel and restrictive as this should have gone before the stipe (district judge).

    The hearing took place in Northallerton but only one of the Northallerton papers has the story and the nationals are repeating the information from the Northern Echo. The Johnson Press title hasn't got it at all. No submissions by the defence are reported and there was no comment by the defence solicitor after the hearing. The December hearing wasn't reported at all. Any lawyer with half an ounce of common sense would be straight off to the Crown Court with an appeal against the interim order.

    I wonder if the order will survive next week.
    How do you know it was justices and not a district judge? If it were justices, there is a very bookish legal advisor sitting on the desk in front of them feeding them the law. The advisor sadly is not at the forefront of legal discussion and I suspect for them to do something so radical there must involve a pressing need. It's a bit like a butcher's boy deciding to add a bit of cumin to the master butcher's famous sausages. It involves a bit of cheek beyond their station.

    The order was formed in Northallerton and renewed in York. The argument of the prosecution and the police prevailed in two different courts with two different legal advisors. I
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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....
    Lol, how on earth do you know this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    I was going to suggest that your superior legal awareness did not seem to lead you to the same conclusions as that poster at all - even that he was 'not considering the complexity of the issue' :teehee: - (but then my amateurism here requires a bit of time to fully work through your comprehensive post!)
    You said you don't understand what we're talking about, but you think you are considering the complexity of the issue? That is a very curious approach you are taking.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    How do you know it was justices and not a district judge? If it were justices, there is a very bookish legal advisor sitting on the desk in front of them feeding them the law. The advisor sadly is not at the forefront of legal discussion and I suspect for them to do something so radical there must involve a pressing need. It's a bit like a butcher's boy deciding to add a bit of cumin to the master butcher's famous sausages. It involves a bit of cheek beyond their station.
    Actually I am wrong the December hearing was in Northallerton and the January one in York

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35385227


    The BBC has it as magistrates and the press are better at reporting this than most things (most of them can spot if there is one person on the bench or 2/3)

    Legal advisers have a reputation of not being very questioning of what applicants/prosecution are seeking from the court. I agree with you that I don't think the suggestion of this order would have come out of the legal adviser's mouth but equally I don't think he would have said "this contravenes Article 8" to a police solicitor (not here the CPS) if the defence weren't raising it. Likewise I am not sure he would say "what were the Crown Court bail conditions?"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)

    The order was formed in Northallerton and renewed in York. The argument of the prosecution and the police Prevailed in two different courts with two different legal advisors.
    Against whom?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    You said you don't understand what we're talking about, but you think you are considering the complexity of the issue? That is a very curious approach you are taking.
    I didn't say I 'don't understand what we're talking about', nor that I thought I was 'considering the complexity of the issue'. I am aware of my ignorance as to the particulars of the law; I was simply suggesting that it may be a good idea to ensure that you are yourself 'considering the complexity of the issue' before telling others to do so in patronising purple prose.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Actually I am wrong the December hearing was in Northallerton and the January one in York

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35385227


    The BBC has it as magistrates and the press are better at reporting this than most things (most of them can spot if there is one person on the bench or 2/3)

    Legal advisers have a reputation of not being very questioning of what applicants/prosecution are seeking from the court. I agree with you that I don't think the suggestion of this order would have come out of the legal adviser's mouth but equally I don't think he would have said "this contravenes Article 8" to a police solicitor (not here the CPS) if the defence weren't raising it. Likewise I am not sure he would say "what were the Crown Court bail conditions?"
    Well, I too find it quite curious that there was very little local reporting of the SRO and very little information offered in all these different articles by national newspapers. I think the reason for this is that all of the articles are mere rewordings of the same underdeveloped story posted by the BBC or the Telegraph. As you note, there was not very many journalists in the court at the time, and certainly there was not a BBC journalist in the court. I suspect they were simply a bit loose with their phraseology when they mentioned magistrates. Though, this is not hugely relevant.

    The argument prevailed twice in two different courts on two different days before several justices and at fewest two legal advisors—unless the case was considered by a district judge. The argument was formed by the prosecution against the defendant, and so the argument by the prosecution prevailed against the defence. Whether or not there was representation present is unknown, but do you think that the defendant would have not made representations considering the extensiveness of the prohibitions? The requirement to inform police officers 24 hours before he intends to have sex is only part of it; we also have restrictions to Internet and telephonic access.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)

    The argument prevailed twice in two different courts on two different days before several justices and at fewest two legal advisors—unless the case was considered by a district judge. The argument was formed by the prosecution against the defendant, and so the argument by the prosecution prevailed against the defence. Whether or not there was representation present is unknown, but do you think that the defendant would have not made representations considering the extensiveness of the prohibitions? The requirement to inform police officers 24 hours before he intends to have sex is only part of it; we also have restrictions to Internet and telephonic access.
    I think the order was either literally uncontested (a decision made by the respondent or his representative) or the respondent had little or no representation if he attended at all.

    I think I now know whom the respondent is and I am obviously not going to publish it here. If I am right, I understand why the order was sought. It goes back to a long-standing problem in the legal system that the psychiatric industry have managed to get away with an argument that people aren't ill unless they can be treated.

    https://registration.bma.org.uk/pres...2?OpenDocument

    I take the completely opposite view to the BMA. It is the job of the medical profession to care for the sick whether or not they can treat them. Imagine the outcry if a hospital refused to receive a patient with terminal cancer,

    The present application appears to be an unjustified attempt to circumvent this problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In a perfect world, this is wrong and he should have more rights. However, we don't live in a perfect world and if these precautions prevent more rapes and send a message to other men who might commit the crime, then good.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't know about this and I am astonished.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think the order was either literally uncontested (a decision made by the respondent or his representative) or the respondent had little or no representation if he attended at all.

    I think I now know whom the respondent is and I am obviously not going to publish it here. If I am right, I understand why the order was sought. It goes back to a long-standing problem in the legal system that the psychiatric industry have managed to get away with an argument that people aren't ill unless they can be treated.

    https://registration.bma.org.uk/pres...2?OpenDocument

    I take the completely opposite view to the BMA. It is the job of the medical profession to care for the sick whether or not they can treat them. Imagine the outcry if a hospital refused to receive a patient with terminal cancer,

    The present application appears to be an unjustified attempt to circumvent this problem.
    If I understand what you suspect of being the case, what could the NHS do? I guess the MHA cannot be used to section him indefinitely and perhaps this is the next best thing?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    If I understand what you suspect of being the case, what could the NHS do? I guess the MHA cannot be used to section him indefinitely and perhaps this is the next best thing?
    A sectioning has to be renewed every year, but there are also Guardianship Orders under the Mental Heath Act which also have to be renewed each year. A person subject to Guardianship lives in the community.

    The problem is that psychiatrists have been allowed to abdicate responsibility for certain people whom the general public would regard as "mad not bad".

    Remember that if this guy disobeys the present order, he can be gaoled for up to five years. If that doesn't give you a queasy feeling, it does me.

    If I am right, it is perfectly obvious that in previous generations he would have been put in an asylum and the key thrown away. When "care in the community" was invented it was supposed to reform a system seen as pernicious. There was no intention to redefine mental illness so as to toss these folk to the criminal justice system.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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....
    So innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing for you is it?

    And why should anyone he's having sex with, have their privacy violated by having the police informed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    A sectioning has to be renewed every year, but there are also Guardianship Orders under the Mental Heath Act which also have to be renewed each year. A person subject to Guardianship lives in the community.

    The problem is that psychiatrists have been allowed to abdicate responsibility for certain people whom the general public would regard as "mad not bad".

    Remember that if this guy disobeys the present order, he can be gaoled for up to five years. If that doesn't give you a queasy feeling, it does me.

    If I am right, it is perfectly obvious that in previous generations he would have been put in an asylum and the key thrown away. When "care in the community" was invented it was supposed to reform a system seen as pernicious. There was no intention to redefine mental illness so as to toss these folk to the criminal justice system.
    The threat of imprisonment, if the mens rea is satisfied, is absolutely not useful. Though, perhaps the benefit of SRO is that it regulates only the sexual part of the defendant's life without dictating other aspects. For people with mental health issues, independence can be significant in boosting self-esteem and in some cases alleviating some of their problems.

    Have you heard of any other SROs used in this way?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    As you do

    Do you think the District Judge was:-

    (a) incredibly naive; or
    (b) thought the police were using a sledgehammer on those nuts?
    :congrats:

    Well played Sir !
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    T

    Have you heard of any other SROs used in this way?
    No. I think this is NYP trying the limits of the jurisdiction.

    My view is that the stated decision of the North Wales DJ got it wrong. He may well have thought the matter too trivial to deal with. However if not, requiring proof of a sexual motive rather than inferring one means that what the legislation was designed for, entirely fails. On the DJ's finding you will not get the man in a brown mac handing out sweets through the railings at the infants school.

    The ones that I can find that have been reported are:-


    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...g_sex_workers/

    Clearly the mags were aware of the prohibition on positive requirements. There is a case (wrong in my view but there none the less) that tagging is a negative not a positive requirement. There is the same mental health issue here.

    http://www.darlingtonandstocktontime...acts_outdoors/

    I think a correct use of the power.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/cri...tick-1-7082213

    Again I think a correct use of the power. Having a single indecent image would be a trivial offence probably not justifying prosecution but the context of him being a teacher and the image being found during an investigation for another sexual offence albeit one that was not committed, justifies the order.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    "Hello is that the police? This is just a forewarning to say that I will probably be having sex within the next twenty-four hours."
    "......Nice."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Accused of a crime, cleared of the charges and found not guilty by the courts, then treated like he's guilty. Get your act together, UK.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.