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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll