Rampley, R. v

Rampley, R. v

The judge was entitled to impose a SOPO under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as the statutory requirements differ from those under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the distinction between 'injury' and 'harm' and the absence of a 'significant risk' requirement under the Sexual Offences Act justified the order.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Kim Rampley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo), Sentencing, Public Protection
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo) Sentencing Public Protection

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Kim Rampley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was entitled to impose a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 despite not finding a risk of serious harm under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the terms and duration of the SOPO were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to impose a SOPO under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as the statutory requirements differ from those under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the distinction between 'injury' and 'harm' and the absence of a 'significant risk' requirement under the Sexual Offences Act justified the order.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • SOPO to last for 7 years instead of until further order
  • If breached, application can be made to increase the term or reinstate indefinite duration