Sexual Risk Orders

[Hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

Any thoughts?

[jeremyp]

It seems odd to punish a man who has been acquitted. Furthermore, it seems like an invasion of privacy for any woman involved.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not comfortable with this either. We have to assume the police think this man is likely to rape, but rapists do so regardless of the law anyway, so this is unlikely to stop anyone from committing rape. We are therefore left with this being a punishment as Jeremy says, and punishing someone who has been found not guilty goes against a good deal of the principles that should be enshrined in our legal process.

And it is a kind of punishment for any woman he has sex with as well. But then how is the law going to prove that he had had sex that he hasn't given notice of if the woman involved chooses to deny it? Surely they couldn't subject his partner to forensic examination. So this is going to be largely unenforceable anyway.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I confess that I did not know such orders existed. Whilst I can kinda sorta justa see the point in such an order being part of a bail condition, the man is not on bail. Is he not allowed to attend a hearing and object to the same?

[Leonard James]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

Any thoughts?

Far more sensible to keep him injected with a sex inhibitor for a couple of years. 

[jeremyp]

Far more sensible to keep him injected with a sex inhibitor for a couple of years. 

Why? He was found not guilty. Why punish him?

[Brownie]

In principle, this is wrong, very wrong;  if a person is found "Not guilty" in a court of law, they should be able to leave the case behind them with no strings attached.  It does, however, sound as though the police strongly believed the man to be guilty but there was not enough evidence.  I've not heard of anything like this before and can't imagine how it will pan out.

[Leonard James]

Why? He was found not guilty. Why punish him?

If they felt he needed surveillance for a while they couldn't have considered him entirely innocent.

It's quite sensible to take measures to prevent an accident before it occurs.

[jeremyp]

If they felt he needed surveillance for a while they couldn't have considered him entirely innocent.

In the UK we have a system in which guilt or innocence is decided in a court of law, not by the police.

It's quite sensible to take measures to prevent an accident before it occurs.

By punishing an innocent man and invading the privacy of his partner(s)?

[Hope]

In the UK we have a system in which guilt or innocence is decided in a court of law, not by the police.

And this order was imposed by the courts, not by the police.  It may have been instigated by the police - and they may have cause to have done so.  For instance, the alleged victim may have provided evidence that was insufficient for a 'guilty' finding but strong enough for what I believe is called a 'not proven' finding in Scotland.  I am aware that we don't have that option south of the border, but I don't know whether a judge has the power to imply/suggest that in a court in England or Wales.

As for information regarding any potential partner, if there is that doubt, isn't this more for that woman's protection?  It is a very fine dividing line.

[BeRational]

In the UK we have a system in which guilt or innocence is decided in a court of law, not by the police.

By punishing an innocent man and invading the privacy of his partner(s)?

I don't think that's quite right.
Innocence is never declared, just guilty or not guilty.
The jury does not find the accused innocent.

[Brownie]

You're right BeRational, "Not guilty" does not necessarily mean innocent, it means there is insufficient evidence to find someone guilty.

I doubt such a measure would have been put in place if the law (courts and cops) believed in this man's innocence;  still it doesn't seem quite right and I cannot imagine how his activities are going to be monitored.

[Hope]

I don't think that's quite right.
Innocence is never declared, just guilty or not guilty.
The jury does not find the accused innocent.

Is there any reason why the Scots have availed themselves of an official verdict that highlights this uncertainty, but the English (and Welsh) haven't?  It would also be interesting to know whether - under their old legal framework that was superceded by the English framework - the Welsh ever had anything comparable.

[jeremyp]

You're right BeRational, "Not guilty" does not necessarily mean innocent, it means there is insufficient evidence to find someone guilty.

I doubt such a measure would have been put in place if the law (courts and cops) believed in this man's innocence;  still it doesn't seem quite right and I cannot imagine how his activities are going to be monitored.

Does a jury trial mean nothing these days then? This man was found not guilty of the charges brought. He is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law and should not be punished. It's that simple.

[L.A.]

It's a completely bizarre ruling. If he has been found Not Guilty, then how can he legally be punished and what could be the sanction if he breaks the order? If the police have evidence that he is a danger to women, then why can't they get sufficient evidence to convict him (of maybe they are too busy breaking into peoples homes)

[Udayana]

Presumably the court ordering/extending the sexual risk order is not the same court where he was found not guilty of the rape,

Surely the two cases must be considered separately. Innocent or not in a particular case does not mean that the man can or cannot be considered a risk to other women.

[jeremyp]

Surely the two cases must be considered separately. Innocent or not in a particular case does not mean that the man can or cannot be considered a risk to other women.

But he has committed no crime. Why is he being punished?

[Leonard James]

But he has committed no crime. Why is he being punished?

We don't know that he committed no crime, all we know is that there was insufficient evidence to convince the jury.

[L.A.]

Presumably the court ordering/extending the sexual risk order is not the same court where he was found not guilty of the rape,

Surely the two cases must be considered separately. Innocent or not in a particular case does not mean that the man can or cannot be considered a risk to other women.

Maybe that is the case, but I find it disturbing that restrictions can be placed on the freedom of an individual without the evidence that could have been used used to obtain a conviction. If we have a system where a person's freedom can be curtailed without due process then we are going down a very dangerous road.

[Udayana]

Well, that is the case. We have laws that allow the imposition of orders whether or not a crime has been committed. It is not a punishment for any crime, but applicable when a court feels there is a risk of unacceptable* future behaviour.

This is the whole principle behind ASBOs and these sexual risk orders - outcomes of the democratic process. Of-course, even though no law was broken, not complying with the order imposed IS against the law and punishable in the usual ways.

* Note: not necessarily illegal behaviour. The "naked rambler" has been jailed frequently although his naked activities are themselves perfectly legal.   

[floo]

Well, that is the case. We have laws that allow the imposition of orders whether or not a crime has been committed. It is not a punishment for any crime, but applicable when a court feels there is a risk of unacceptable* future behaviour.

This is the whole principle behind ASBOs and these sexual risk orders - outcomes of the democratic process. Of-course, even though no law was broken, not complying with the order imposed IS against the law and punishable in the usual ways.

* Note: not necessarily illegal behaviour. The "naked rambler" has been jailed frequently although his naked activities are themselves perfectly legal.

Strolling around naked in public is not legal in the UK.

[L.A.]

Well, that is the case. We have laws that allow the imposition of orders whether or not a crime has been committed. It is not a punishment for any crime, but applicable when a court feels there is a risk of unacceptable* future behaviour.

This is the whole principle behind ASBOs and these sexual risk orders - outcomes of the democratic process. Of-course, even though no law was broken, not complying with the order imposed IS against the law and punishable in the usual ways.

* Note: not necessarily illegal behaviour. The "naked rambler" has been jailed frequently although his naked activities are themselves perfectly legal.

Personally, I think there is something very wrong if our laws punish people when no crime has been committed. ASBOs are a bit of a lazy option because minor crimes usually have been committed but no one wants to be bothered with a proper prosecution. (in times gone-by the Stocks would have been used)

[Gonnagle]

Dear L.A,

L.A eh! boy am I slow I was about to reply to another of your post and then I thought, L.A, who is this L.A

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

If they felt he needed surveillance for a while they couldn't have considered him entirely innocent.

It's quite sensible to take measures to prevent an accident before it occurs.

Except that it's not their place to decide if he's guilty or innocent, that's for the courts to decide. And they did.

Don't misunderstand, I think that if they've taken the steps of introducing this order then they (probably) have good reason, but those reasons should be put in public in principle, and the courts given their say on them.

O.

[Udayana]

The police applied for the order, which was imposed as an interim measure by a magistrates court in North Yorkshire, and has now been extended by magistrates in York. The person involved cannot be named for legal reasons.