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

[SteveB]

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

"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."

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.

I can see where they are coming from and why such orders are imposed, but....... a step too far?

[LazarusRisen]

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.

[SteveB]

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.

I do agree. Such orders are only used in England and Wales.

But, I would have concerns if such orders were to appear in Ireland, especially in the North, were you would have less confidence they were being used properly.

[bettercallsaul]

I do agree. Such orders are only used in England and Wales.

But, I would have concerns if such orders were to appear in Ireland, especially in the North, were you would have less confidence they were being used properly.

Regardless of where they are used anyone that appeals will win,it may have to go to a higher court but that is simply not legal,much as I wish it were and know it should be in some cases.

[SteveB]

Regardless of where they are used anyone that appeals will win,it may have to go to a higher court but that is simply not legal,much as I wish it were and know it should be in some cases.

Whether it is "legal" or not is an interesting legal point.
It would be illegal if it was a "court sentence" but British Magistrates have virtually unlimited powers to impose various temporary restraining orders and the like. These orders, in some cases, can be almost indefinitely extended and “temporary” can be a long time.
Of course they can be constantly appealed, but without legal aid, this is expensive and can take a long time. And in the mean time the order continues.

[bettercallsaul]

Whether it is "legal" or not is an interesting legal point.
It would be illegal if it was a "court sentence" but British Magistrates have virtually unlimited powers to impose various temporary restraining orders and the like. These orders, in some cases, can be almost indefinitely extended and “temporary” can be a long time.
Of course they can be constantly appealed, but without legal aid, this is expensive and can take a long time. And in the mean time the order continues.

Appeals would in the long run cost nothing if you know you will win the case,that is the point.

[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.