Big Brother? English Man ordered to tell police if he plans to have sex

[SteveB]

While I understand that the courts are clearly trying to prevent harm to the public, the problem is he has been tried for an offence, and found not guilty, yet has a sanction applied by the courts.

[LazarusRisen]

While I understand that the courts are clearly trying to prevent harm to the public, the problem is he has been tried for an offence, and found not guilty, yet has a sanction applied by the courts.

You're right, of course. Legally speaking.

Blackstone famously said 'Better that 10 guilty men walk free than that one innocent suffer'.

My legal knowledge is too deficient to comment with any authority, but I find it interesting that the man in question was acquitted on appeal. Which presumably means he was found guilty the first time. I wonder if it's one of those cases where everyone knows he did it, but they just couldn't prove it conclusively prove it. (I have only read the article posted and am only surmising. He may well be completely innocent and have been all along).

Also, according to the article ... '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.'

There may be legal basis for the orders, as the powers that be will have at least consulted with a legal mind before passing the act.

Here's a piece from Liberty ... https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...d-civil-orders

[bettercallsaul]

You're right, of course. Legally speaking.

Blackstone famously said 'Better that 10 guilty men walk free than that one innocent suffer'.

My legal knowledge is too deficient to comment with any authority, but I find it interesting that the man in question was acquitted on appeal. Which presumably means he was found guilty the first time. I wonder if it's one of those cases where everyone knows he did it, but they just couldn't prove it conclusively prove it. (I have only read the article posted and am only surmising. He may well be completely innocent and have been all along).

Also, according to the article ... '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.'

There may be legal basis for the orders, as the powers that be will have at least consulted with a legal mind before passing the act.

Here's a piece from Liberty ... https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...d-civil-orders

The fact remains that the quote could read 1000 to one cause it is that wrong to convict an innocent man,it sadly means many guilty men go free, but it is the price we pay for innocent until proven guilty,once he was acquitted he had once again the rights of every one,it is soul destroying to see a guilty man hiding behind the law but the law is there to protect the innocent. (I use the term man to represent us all as people)

[LazarusRisen]

If it walks like a pig, talks like a pig ....

I wonder if in this case, as Sandy pointed out, this temporary order is in place while the police gather extra evidence against him for this or other crimes. I can't imagine the police can just whisper to a magistrate 'help us out here guv, we reckon he did it, but can't pin it on him'. They must surely have held some pretty convincing evidence to have got the order passed in the first place.

[Magicman]

The fact that the police requested this order probably means that there is sufficient evidence of him being a danger to others without enough evidence to prove he was guilty of the rape he was suspected of, charged with and found not guilty on appeal.

Imagine the outcry if he raped a number of girls, which could have been avoided if the police had applied for this order to be enforced but didn't.

It is only a precautionary measure and I imagine that the magistrate in question found that there was sufficient evidence for it to be applied.

[justfrank44]

The fact that the police requested this order probably means that there is sufficient evidence of him being a danger to others without enough evidence to prove he was guilty of the rape he was suspected of, charged with and found not guilty on appeal.

Imagine the outcry if he raped a number of girls, which could have been avoided if the police had applied for this order to be enforced but didn't.

It is only a precautionary measure and I imagine that the magistrate in question found that there was sufficient evidence for it to be applied.

Because he will of course notify the police before he goes out to rape someone. If there is insufficient evidence to convict then they should not be allowed to impose these orders. If there is enough evidence to warrant these orders then it should also be enough to bring another conviction. What is the point of having a judicial system if it can circumvented in this way?

[SteveB]

Because he will of course notify the police before he goes out to rape someone. If there is insufficient evidence to convict then they should not be allowed to impose these orders. If there is enough evidence to warrant these orders then it should also be enough to bring another conviction. What is the point of having a judicial system if it can circumvented in this way?

Sums up the problem.
“Double jeopardy” is not absolute now in the British legal system, but even so, if he has went through a trial and an appeal it is unlikely he could be tried again. This then raises the question, are they just going to keep extending these orders forever [and it can be done] or are they going to “bite the bullet” sometime and not extend the order and then all they have done is “kick the can further down the road”.

[SteveB]

There are two opposing arguments representing the problem here.

1. Clearly it is not good legal practice. It can be argued that someone is a danger to the public, but how can we be sure of the facts if they cannot be established by due legal process?

2. On the other hand the public need to be protected.

[willie wacker]

The fact remains that the quote could read 1000 to one cause it is that wrong to convict an innocent man,it sadly means many guilty men go free, but it is the price we pay for innocent until proven guilty,once he was acquitted he had once again the rights of every one,it is soul destroying to see a guilty man hiding behind the law but the law is there to protect the innocent. (I use the term man to represent us all as people)

It is there to protect the innocent but unfortunately it is abused by the guilty and their lawyers to hide behind , has to be 100% proven , which is nearly impossible.
We all know there is guilty people walking the streets because their lawyers got them off on a technicality which is wrong.
I don,t care if police harass scumbags like them , they have no right in society

[TonyB]

Without knowing the specifics of this case ...

rape is one of the most horrific crimes that can be committed. But we (reasonable adults) all know this. There must have been something 'iffy' about this case - as in, even though the guy got let off, there must have been a feeling that he might have done it - but not enough evidence to secure a conviction. It might be arguable that the court order stomps on some of his rights, but if he poses a recognised threat to women, I'd say the rights of one don't outweigh the rights of any/all his potential victims. The order is only for 4 months, so, if he behaves himself he'll be ok.

Hmmm, I have an issue with what you are saying. While I understand you do make a point with some validity I believe it is inherently flawed.
If a person is innocent until proven guilty then they are innocent.
It's not right under any circumstances to remove any persons rights when they have not been found guilty of a crime.
This undermines the very principles of our constitution.
I am increasingly concerned about human right violations in the name of the greater good.
Two wrongs can never make a right.