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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll