Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ebanks

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ebanks

Because of the serious consequences of a risk of sexual harm order and its quasi-criminal nature, the criminal standard of proof applies to the conduct required under section 123(4)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The District Judge was correct to require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Risk of Sexual Harm Orders, Sexual Offences Act, Civil Preventative Orders, Human Rights Implications
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Standard of Proof Risk of Sexual Harm Orders Sexual Offences Act Civil Preventative Orders Human Rights Implications

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 4 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 / Judgment

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 or the civil standard (balance of probabilities)?

Ratio Decidendi

Because of the serious consequences of a risk of sexual harm order and its quasi-criminal nature, the criminal standard of proof applies to the conduct required under section 123(4)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The District Judge was correct to require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the District Judge's decision is upheld.
  • Detailed assessment of defendant's costs if required.