Interim Sexual Risk Order Issued.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

North Yorkshire police requested an interim sexual risk order be issued for a man from York. Essentially, should this man desire to have sex with a woman, he must notify the North Yorkshire police at least 24 hours prior. The article doesn't indicate that this is a condition of bail. It does say that police can request such orders when they feel the public is at risk.

This appears to be spitting in the face of civil rights but I'm assuming the story is leaving out important details. Hopefully one of our Dakkaites from the UK can give us more information on this and let us know what's really going on with these kind of orders.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-banned-from-having-sex-unless-he-gives-police-24-hours-notice-a3162771.html

Man banned from having sex unless he gives police 24 hours notice

A man has been banned from having sex with a woman unless he gives police 24 hours warning.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, must also tell officers in North Yorkshire the name of the woman he plans to have sex with before engaging in any form of sexual activity.

If the man wishes to have sex outside the North Yorkshire Police force area, he must instead contact the relevant local police force.

The man, from York, must also tell police about every device he owns or has access to that can access the internet or make contact with other people, the York Press reports.

The conditions were imposed on the man by way of an interim sexual risk order, requested by North Yorkshire Police.

The order was approved by a York magistrate and will be active until May 19, when the court will assess whether or not a full order is required, and if so how long it should last for.

The man will be bound by the civil order even though he has not been convicted of a sexual offence.

Breaching a sexual risk order can result in a five-year prison sentence.

Police can apply for orders in cases where they feel there is a need to protect the wider public.

**Silent Puffin?**

At a guess I would say that he was HIV+ve and has previous history/convictions of knowingly having unprotected sex with someone unaware of his condition.

No idea if this is actually the case but it seems the most likely.

**Peregrine**

Breotan wrote:
The man will be bound by the civil order even though he has not been convicted of a sexual offence.

This is a rather disturbing fact. This would make sense as conditions of parole or a plea bargain, but I don't see how this isn't abuse of police power if he hasn't been convicted of any crime.

The man, from York, must also tell police about every device he owns or has access to that can access the internet or make contact with other people, the York Press reports.

And this is really disturbing. What devices he has is a fact that has nothing to do with sexual risk, and I doubt the police are going to destroy the information if the court finds the interim order to be unjustified. I think it should be obvious why it's a problem that the police can force you to hand over information with a threat of prison time if you refuse to provide it.

**Mr. Burning**

The BBC has slightly more detail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex.
The man, in his 40s, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted in 2015 at a retrial after claiming the alleged victim had consented.
An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.
It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
The order - which was drawn up by magistrates in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and extended in York - reads: "You must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth.
"You must do this at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place."
It also contains restrictions on his use of the internet and mobile phone devices and requires him to inform officers of any change of address.
A further court hearing in May will decide whether the interim order should be made into a full order, which has a minimum duration of two years and can last indefinitely.
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.
They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.

So. The guy was acquitted but the police and magistrates feel he is a risk.

Still not enough information for us up-in-arm-chair lawyers to make a decision.

**Kilkrazy**

Fortunately there is nothing to stop him having sex with men, so I suggest we club together to buy him a ticket to Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

**JamesY**

It might be related to biological gbh, I.e. having sex with the deliberate intention of passing on an sti. He may have unsuccessfully attempted this (I.e. the intended victim luckily did not contract the illness, therefore no crime.) The court order would prevent him from further opportunistic attempts.

**Iron_Captain**

Yeah, but what if he wants to have sex with a guy?

**Breotan**

Mr. Burning wrote:
So. The guy was acquitted but the police and magistrates feel he is a risk. Still not enough information for us up-in-arm-chair lawyers to make a decision.

Well, at the risk of playing devil's advocate for an actual devil, isn't this sort of order a gross violation of civil liberty? I mean it seems akin to putting people on our sex offenders list without actually being convicted of being a sex offender. And just to be fair, we have something similar to this regarding keeping some pedos confined even when they have completed their sentence. The difference is that a conviction is still required in our country.

I guess my main concern is the seeming lack of due process. I can see a situation where a woman makes a false allegation, getting an interim sexual risk order drawn up as a form of harassment. It almost seems tailor made for this type of stunt.

**JamesY**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, but what if he wants to have sex with a guy?

If he has no history of homosexuality then it won't be a consideration, and it is unlikely that a man who targets women would suddenly pursue men because of a court order. If he had shown any such inclination, the order would have covered such activity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
So. The guy was acquitted but the police and magistrates feel he is a risk. Still not enough information for us up-in-arm-chair lawyers to make a decision.

Well, at the risk of playing devil's advocate for an actual devil, isn't this sort of order a gross violation of civil liberty? I mean it seems akin to putting people on our sex offenders list without actually being convicted of being a sex offender. And just to be fair, we have something similar to this regarding keeping some pedos confined even when they have completed their sentence. The difference is that a conviction is still required in our country.

I guess my main concern is the seeming lack of due process. I can see a situation where a woman makes a false allegation, getting an interim sexual risk order drawn up as a form of harassment. It almost seems tailor made for this type of stunt.

Without access to all the information, none of us can make any kind of valuable opinion. Such an order would not have been given though without due reason.

**Mr. Burning**

Breotan wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
So. The guy was acquitted but the police and magistrates feel he is a risk. Still not enough information for us up-in-arm-chair lawyers to make a decision.

Well, at the risk of playing devil's advocate for an actual devil, isn't this sort of order a gross violation of civil liberty? I mean it seems akin to putting people on our sex offenders list without actually being convicted of being a sex offender. And just to be fair, we have something similar to this regarding keeping some pedos confined even when they have completed their sentence. The difference is that a conviction is still required in our country.

I guess my main concern is the seeming lack of due process. I can see a situation where a woman makes a false allegation, getting an interim sexual risk order drawn up as a form of harassment. It almost seems tailor made for this type of stunt.

There are probably prior sentences or accusations against the man named on this order. (We won't find out about those, if they exist)

Knowingly transmitting an STI - As others have said - Is a possibility.

Or it could be an over reach by the court and the old bill.

I don't think the meninazis have much to fear from such orders being used after a false allegation of rape.

**Peregrine**

JamesY wrote:
Without access to all the information, none of us can make any kind of valuable opinion. Such an order would not have been given though without due reason.

We have plenty of information. He was tried and found not guilty. There is no excuse for the police saying "well, you're innocent, but we think you're kind of suspicious so we'll just pretend that we convicted you and restrict your freedom appropriately".

**Mr. Burning**

Peregrine wrote:
JamesY wrote:
Without access to all the information, none of us can make any kind of valuable opinion. Such an order would not have been given though without due reason.

We have plenty of information. He was tried and found not guilty. There is no excuse for the police saying "well, you're innocent, but we think you're kind of suspicious so we'll just pretend that we convicted you and restrict your freedom appropriately".

Again, the guy may have prior convictions that make him a risk or have some tendencies towards sexual violence etc - (which cannot be disclosed).

To get an order like this in place the Police and CPS really really really need to have a case to make. or they are trampling over our rights and we are now in a police state.

**JamesY**

Peregrine wrote:
JamesY wrote:
Without access to all the information, none of us can make any kind of valuable opinion. Such an order would not have been given though without due reason.

We have plenty of information. He was tried and found not guilty. There is no excuse for the police saying "well, you're innocent, but we think you're kind of suspicious so we'll just pretend that we convicted you and restrict your freedom appropriately".

That is not enough detail. If he had sex with the deliberate intention of passing, say HIV to the woman, he is a danger to women. The case against him may have fallen on the grounds that the woman did not contract HIV, despite his intentions, and therefore no actual harm done. He should not be freely able to attempt the same crime because a victim was lucky. I am not saying that is what happened, but I would strongly suspect from similar cases over the last few years.

**Peregrine**

JamesY wrote:
That is not enough detail. If he had sex with the deliberate intention of passing, say HIV to the woman, he is a danger to women.

From the point of view of the police and legal system he did not do that. Deliberately attempting to pass on a disease is a crime (and if it isn't, there's something seriously wrong with your laws), and he wasn't convinced of that crime. The police shouldn't be able to declare that someone is guilty and put restrictions on them without a trial and conviction.

The case against him may have fallen on the grounds that the woman did not contract HIV, despite his intentions, and therefore no actual harm done.

Nonsense. Trying to harm someone and failing is still a crime. If you attempt to shoot someone but miss it's still attempted murder, and you're still going to prison for a long time.

He should not be freely able to attempt the same crime because a victim was lucky.

I see. So the police should be able to declare that "the victim was lucky", overrule the court's decision that someone is not guilty, and declare that they will be punished for their "crime"? Do you honestly not see a problem with a situation where even being cleared in court is not sufficient to prevent you from being punished for a crime?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Again, the guy may have prior convictions that make him a risk or have some tendencies towards sexual violence etc - (which cannot be disclosed).

Then the order should cite those convictions. If there are only "tendencies", not convictions, then it's nothing more than speculation and preemptive punishment of an innocent person.

**Silent Puffin?**

Peregrine wrote:

Then the order should cite those convictions.

It may well and there is almost certain to be factors that haven't been released to the press.

I used to work in Northallerton and my son was born there.

**Tactical_Spam**

Don't we have an amendment about innocence until proven guilty?

**JamesY**

@peregrine as I clearly said, I am speculating. We don't know the details of the case, only the outcome. The order would not have been given without due reason, not being able to imagine what that reason is isn't the same as there not being one.

**jhe90**

That's a serious order, there's going to be a solid reason behind it.

Whatever it is, the Police could not get it for no reason.

**JamesY**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't we have an amendment about innocence until proven guilty?

Did they include that in the "welcome to Guantanamo Bay" literature pack?

(cheap shot from another country that has used indefinite holding for the same purpose)

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't we have an amendment about innocence until proven guilty?

We do, but this is happening in Great Briton which isn't governed by our Constitution and has different laws and legal culture.

**Peregrine**

JamesY wrote:
@peregrine as I clearly said, I am speculating. We don't know the details of the case, only the outcome. The order would not have been given without due reason, not being able to imagine what that reason is isn't the same as there not being one.

It must be nice to be naive and trusting enough to think that the police always have good reasons for doing something, and would never abuse their power.

**Tactical_Spam**

Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't we have an amendment about innocence until proven guilty?

We do, but this is happening in Great Briton which isn't governed by our Constitution and has different laws and legal culture.

Misread North Yorkshire for New York.

**JamesY**

Peregrine wrote:
JamesY wrote:
@peregrine as I clearly said, I am speculating. We don't know the details of the case, only the outcome. The order would not have been given without due reason, not being able to imagine what that reason is isn't the same as there not being one.

It must be nice to be naive and trusting enough to think that the police always have good reasons for doing something, and would never abuse their power.

I am not naive about such matters thank you, and don't be patronizing, especially on a matter on which you have very little factual information. The police don't have the power to issue such an order without permission from the courts. I also don't live in the 50's. Don't fall off that pedestal you seem to place yourself on.

**Ouze**

I really, really hope there is a lot more to this than what we have, because man, this seems 10 kinds of messed up.

**easysauce**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
JamesY wrote:
Without access to all the information, none of us can make any kind of valuable opinion. Such an order would not have been given though without due reason.

We have plenty of information. He was tried and found not guilty. There is no excuse for the police saying "well, you're innocent, but we think you're kind of suspicious so we'll just pretend that we convicted you and restrict your freedom appropriately".

Again, the guy may have prior convictions that make him a risk or have some tendencies towards sexual violence etc - (which cannot be disclosed).

To get an order like this in place the Police and CPS really really really need to have a case to make. or they are trampling over our rights and we are now in a police state.

If his priors were justification for these actions, why would that suddenly be applied now? surely if he deserved it due to past actions then they would have been acted upon.

Why wait to do this if you already have everything needed in prior convictions already?

**filbert**

We should just give them all guns and then they can settle their differences like men.

**JamesY**

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442151/2015-07-03_FINAL_Guidance_Part_2_SOA_2003.pdf

This document contains the guidelines for the issuing of a sexual risk order. Might shed some light, or shroud it in further speculation.

Rightly or wrongly served, the investigation into whether or not he poses a risk will determine his innocence or guilt. However, something has clearly happened to warrant it.

**godardc**

Innocence until proved guilty is a thing in France, too.
I think it is the same in all the developed countries ?
It is really a weird story ^^

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I really, really hope there is a lot more to this than what we have, because man, this seems 10 kinds of messed up.

I get the impression that a lot of salient facts are not in the public domain at this present time.

**Mr. Burning**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I really, really hope there is a lot more to this than what we have, because man, this seems 10 kinds of messed up.

I get the impression that a lot of salient facts are not in the public domain at this present time.

History of prior sentences and activities may be withheld by the courts to protect victims identities and maybe the person the order is made against.