This is a weird situation, though. He's not having his right to have sex removed, he just has to alert the authorities in advance. As it happens, it'd probably take as long to have his appeal heard as the (4 month) enforcement of the order. Perhaps naively, I've always lived by the maxim 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.
Richard Atkinson, who chairs the criminal law committee of the Law Society, is concerned about the orders.
"Of course, a great deal of stigma is attached to anyone who has such an order made and if the process of obtaining these orders is less than that is needed for a conviction then that's a very worrying departure from our normal standards."
Last edited by SteveB; 22-01-16 at 18:54.
We are only given limited information about this case, so without knowing the exact details of the rape of which he was cleared, it's impossible to form an a definitive opinion on whether or not, this is a step too far. These are orders are requested by the police, they must have put forward their concerns to have this order issued in December. I, suspect that, the police may be doing further investigations whilst this order is in place.
Sandy x
In memory of an awesome woman Laura Lee RIP
It's so difficult to articulate just how much she meant. Inspirational, brave and irreplaceable - our hero.
Please do what you can for her daughter. Deeply appreciated.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/glasgaelauralee
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