Cleveland Police, R (on the application of) v H [2009] EWHC 3231 (Admin) (20 November 2009)

Cleveland Police, R (on the application of) v H [2009] EWHC 3231 (Admin) (20 November 2009)

The facts relied upon to justify a Sexual Offences Prevention Order must be established to the criminal standard. In this case, the 2007 incident could not be relied upon due to the unreliability of the complainant and the acquittal, and the 2001 matters were too remote and untested. Therefore, the Crown Court's refusal to make the order was reasonable and correct in law.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3231 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Cleveland Police; Defendant: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Crown Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Standard of Proof, Hearsay Evidence, Costs in Civil Proceedings
Criminal Law Public Law Civil Procedure Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Standard of Proof Hearsay Evidence Costs in Civil Proceedings

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cleveland Police

Claimant

H

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Crown Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct standard of proof for making a Sexual Offences Prevention Order under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?
  2. 2 Was the Crown Court correct in refusing to make a Sexual Offences Prevention Order based on the evidence presented?

Ratio Decidendi

The facts relied upon to justify a Sexual Offences Prevention Order must be established to the criminal standard. In this case, the 2007 incident could not be relied upon due to the unreliability of the complainant and the acquittal, and the 2001 matters were too remote and untested. Therefore, the Crown Court's refusal to make the order was reasonable and correct in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs to the defendant, subject to detailed Legal Aid assessment
  • Leave granted for Legal Aid assessment