header-logo header-logo

22 November 2018 / Adrian Lower
Issue: 7818 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Sexual risk orders: application & attendance

​How essential is the defendant’s attendance at a hearing? Adrian Lower dissects the evidence

  • Discusses the nature & purpose of Sexual Risk Orders.
  • What does the absence of the defendant at the hearing mean for the continuity of the case?

Sexual Risk Orders (SROs) came into being on 8 March 2015, as part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Commencement No 8, Saving and Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 (SI 2015/373), amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) to insert ss 122A-K into that Act. They replaced the Risk of Sexual Harm Order (ss 123-129 of SOA 2003). Unlike Risk of Sexual Harm Orders, there is no requirement that the court should be satisfied that the public are at risk of serious sexual harm from the defendant before the order is made.

The police or National Crime Agency may apply to the Magistrates’ Court (including the Youth Court) for an SRO if at any time the defendant had done an act of a sexual nature as a result

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll