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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

It is a problem with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and anti-terrorism restraint orders (IDK the official name). However it doesn't happen that these are imposed after a single unsubstantiated complaint.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

It is a problem with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and anti-terrorism restraint orders (IDK the official name). However it doesn't happen that these are imposed after a single unsubstantiated complaint.

Orders like that are not drawn up for nothing, they need solid proof behind them.

**Tannhauser42**

JamesY wrote:
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.

Yeah, who needs to know the full details and facts of a case when one can just jump to conclusions instead?

Spoiler:

**Grey Templar**

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".

Yeah, what the hell makes this ok to do?

**Kilkrazy**

jhe90 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

It is a problem with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and anti-terrorism restraint orders (IDK the official name). However it doesn't happen that these are imposed after a single unsubstantiated complaint.

Orders like that are not drawn up for nothing, they need solid proof behind them.

True, however it is possible to get a prison sentence by violating an ASBO without ever being prosecuted by a magistrate or jury. Similarly, anti-terrorism restraint orders amount to house arrest on the say-so of a judge again without the benefit of trial.

In other words, there many be solid proof but it isn't solid enough to actually constitute a crime that would be able to be successfully prosecuted in court. Because of this I believe there is a problem of basic justice.

**JamesY**

Grey Templar 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".

Yeah, what the hell makes this ok to do?

Oh I don't know, protecting local women from a potentially dangerous individual? As has been said many times already, he has clearly done something in the past, and this is a court ordered restraint whilst an investigation is taking place. Worst case scenario for him if he's innocent is no one night stands until May 19th. Best case scenario if he's guilty, potential victims are avoided.

**Steve steveson**

No, worst case is that this interim order is made permanent.

Frankly these orders, like terrorist control orders, are a massive abuse of liberties. The put unreasonable restrictions on people where the police have fail to reach the required level of proof. They are nothing more than saying "we know that he must have done something because he looks dead shifty". They are all an attempt by the courts, police and government to sidestep a basic principle of law and natural justice.