Mortimer, R. v

Mortimer, R. v

The prohibitions in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the SOPO were not necessary, proportionate, or capable of being properly policed; revised prohibitions were substituted to ensure clarity, necessity, and proportionality.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Jason Christopher Mortimer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Proportionality, Oppression, Public Protection
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Proportionality Oppression Public Protection

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Jason Christopher Mortimer

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the terms of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) imposed were necessary, proportionate, and not oppressive
  2. 2 Whether the prohibitions in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the SOPO were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibitions in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the SOPO were not necessary, proportionate, or capable of being properly policed; revised prohibitions were substituted to ensure clarity, necessity, and proportionality.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraphs 10 to 16 of the SOPO are replaced with revised prohibitions as specified in the judgment.
  • Revised SOPO to be drawn up and checked against transcript.