Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ebanks [2012] EWHC 2368 (Admin) (04 July 2012)

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ebanks [2012] EWHC 2368 (Admin) (04 July 2012)

The criminal standard of proof applies to the conduct required to be proved under section 123(4)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a risk of sexual harm order, because the proceedings, though civil in form, have serious consequences akin to criminal sanctions, including significant interference with Article 8 rights and the risk of imprisonment upon breach.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2368 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Defendant: Robert Ebanks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Risk of Sexual Harm Orders, Sexual Offences Act 2003, Civil Vs Criminal Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights Law Standard of Proof Risk of Sexual Harm Orders Sexual Offences Act 2003 Civil Vs Criminal Proceedings Article 8 ECHR

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

Parties

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Claimant

Robert Ebanks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct standard of proof for conduct required to be proved under section 123(4)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a risk of sexual harm order?
  2. 2 Should the standard be the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) or the civil standard (balance of probabilities)?

Ratio Decidendi

The criminal standard of proof applies to the conduct required to be proved under section 123(4)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a risk of sexual harm order, because the proceedings, though civil in form, have serious consequences akin to criminal sanctions, including significant interference with Article 8 rights and the risk of imprisonment upon breach.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • District Judge's decision affirmed
  • Application for detailed assessment of defendant's costs permitted if required