AB, R v

AB, R v

The court was not satisfied that the necessary criteria for making a sexual harm prevention order were met, as there was no clear finding that it was necessary to protect the public from sexual harm from the applicant. The judge was not entitled to impose the order in the absence of such a finding.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Sexual Harm Prevention Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harm Prevention Order, Child Abduction, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Sexual Harm Prevention Order Child Abduction Sentencing Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

AB

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Sexual Harm Prevention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sexual harm prevention order imposed on AB was lawful under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the terms and duration of the order were necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not satisfied that the necessary criteria for making a sexual harm prevention order were met, as there was no clear finding that it was necessary to protect the public from sexual harm from the applicant. The judge was not entitled to impose the order in the absence of such a finding.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • extension of time granted
  • permission to appeal granted