Beaney, R. v

Beaney, R. v

The restraining order was justified as necessary to protect children from serious psychological harm contributed to by the applicant's viewing of indecent images, but the terms of the order were too wide and required amendment to ensure proportionality.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Andrew David Beaney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; restraining order varied
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Sex Offences, Indecent Images, Risk Assessment
Criminal Law Restraining Orders Sex Offences Indecent Images Risk Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Andrew David Beaney

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraining order under section 5A of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was necessary to protect the public from serious harm
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the restraining order were too wide

Ratio Decidendi

The restraining order was justified as necessary to protect children from serious psychological harm contributed to by the applicant's viewing of indecent images, but the terms of the order were too wide and required amendment to ensure proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; restraining order varied

Orders

  • Restraining order amended to remove 'or having access to' from paragraphs (1) and (2)
  • Restraining order amended to clarify equipment and materials covered