REGINA v LEE (ALSO KNOWN AS MANDY) DAVIDOFF

REGINA v LEE (ALSO KNOWN AS MANDY) DAVIDOFF

Prohibitions 1 and 5 do not simply mimic existing offences and are necessary to prevent sexual harm; however, Prohibitions 4 and 5 are outside statutory power as they do not meet criteria under sections 344 and 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Lee (also known as Mandy) Davidoff
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against SHPO Prohibitions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Communications Offences
Criminal Law Sexual Harm Prevention Orders Sentencing Sexual Offences Communications Offences

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Lee (also known as Mandy) Davidoff

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against SHPO Prohibitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prohibitions in the SHPO mimic existing criminal law and are necessary under statutory meaning
  2. 2 Whether the court had statutory power to impose certain prohibitions to prevent commission of offences under the Communications Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

Prohibitions 1 and 5 do not simply mimic existing offences and are necessary to prevent sexual harm; however, Prohibitions 4 and 5 are outside statutory power as they do not meet criteria under sections 344 and 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Prohibitions 4 and 5 in the SHPO quashed