Thomas James Thorpe v R

Thomas James Thorpe v R

Paragraph 11 of the SHPO does not conflict with the statutory barring regime and is justified by a real risk of unsupervised contact with children outside the scope of regulated activity; the risk is sufficient to warrant its inclusion given the appellant's dangerousness and the need to protect children.

Parties
Appellant: Thomas James Thorpe; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Ground 3
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harm Prevention Order, Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, Disclosure and Barring Service, Proportionality of Prohibitions, Conflict of Statutory Regimes
Criminal Law Sexual Harm Prevention Order Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 Disclosure and Barring Service Proportionality of Prohibitions Conflict of Statutory Regimes

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas James Thorpe

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Ground 3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 11 of the SHPO conflicts with or is unnecessary due to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 regime
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 11 is proportionate and necessary given the statutory barring regime and paragraph 10 of the SHPO

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 11 of the SHPO does not conflict with the statutory barring regime and is justified by a real risk of unsupervised contact with children outside the scope of regulated activity; the risk is sufficient to warrant its inclusion given the appellant's dangerousness and the need to protect children.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ground 3 fails
  • Appeal dismissed