D v R. [2005] EWCA Crim 3660 (16 December 2005)

D v R. [2005] EWCA Crim 3660 (16 December 2005)

The statutory criteria for making a SOPO in respect of L were met on the evidence, including risk of future schedule 3 offences and risk of serious psychological harm to L. However, the original order was too wide and indefinite; the SOPO should be varied to prohibit contact with L only until his sixteenth birthday...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 3660
Parties
Appellant: D; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Sentence and Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; SOPO varied
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo), Children Act 1989, Risk Assessment, Article 8 ECHR, Variation of Orders
Criminal Law Family Law Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo) Children Act 1989 Risk Assessment Article 8 ECHR Variation of Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Sentence and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SOPO prohibiting contact with the appellant's son L was necessary under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court judge properly applied the statutory criteria for making a SOPO in respect of L
  3. 3 How SOPOs interact with family court jurisdiction and the welfare of the child

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory criteria for making a SOPO in respect of L were met on the evidence, including risk of future schedule 3 offences and risk of serious psychological harm to L. However, the original order was too wide and indefinite; the SOPO should be varied to prohibit contact with L only until his sixteenth birthday and subject to variation by a family court order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; SOPO varied

Orders

  • SOPO to prohibit the appellant from communicating or seeking to communicate, directly or indirectly, with L while he remains under sixteen years, unless permitted by order of a judge exercising jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989.