header-logo header-logo

10 October 2025 / Henrietta Ronson
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Under constant surveillance?

231937
Restriction zones for released offenders present profound legal, ethical & practical difficulties, argues Henrietta Ronson
  • Examines the roots of exclusionary legislation, government promises, the pitfalls, the troubling role of barely tested algorithmic and AI-driven risk assessments in criminal enforcement, and the lessons that can be learned from the US.

The notion of separating offenders from victims through geographical boundaries is a tale as old as time. Historically, offenders were banished into exile to punish and shame. More recently, the law has implemented legislation that strives to manage risk with protection for complainants:

  • Non-molestation orders were introduced by the Family Law Act 1996, one of the earliest UK laws allowing courts to prohibit an abuser from harassing or contacting a victim (including exclusion from certain areas).
  • Restraining orders have been available since the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
  • Sexual harm prevention orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 can exclude offenders from both physical and online spaces.
  • Domestic violence protection orders and domestic abuse protection orders have been designed
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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll