header-logo header-logo

Sexual risk orders: application & attendance

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

​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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll