D v R.

D v R.

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 inflexible. The SOPO should be varied to prohibit contact with L unless permitted by a judge exercising jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989, thus linking the order to the family court’s flexible jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: D; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo) From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; 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

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 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 Against Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo) From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SOPO prohibiting contact with the appellant's son L was necessary under section 104 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 Whether the SOPO should be varied to reflect the jurisdiction of the family court

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 inflexible. The SOPO should be varied to prohibit contact with L unless permitted by a judge exercising jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989, thus linking the order to the family court’s flexible jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; SOPO varied

Orders

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