AG -v- M [2011] JRC 174 (01 September 2011)

AG -v- M [2011] JRC 174 (01 September 2011)

Given the nature and gravity of the offence, short period since release, and inability to entirely discount risk, it is appropriate to impose notification requirements on M.

Citation
[2011] JRC 174
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 13 of the Sex Offenders (jersey) Law 2010 / Determination of Liability to Notification Requirements
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Sex Offender Notification Requirements, Discretion Under Article 13, Proportionality, Risk Assessment
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Sex Offender Notification Requirements Discretion Under Article 13 Proportionality Risk Assessment

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 13 of the Sex Offenders (jersey) Law 2010 / Determination of Liability to Notification Requirements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should M be made subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 despite conviction predating the law?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate period before M can apply to have notification requirements removed?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the nature and gravity of the offence, short period since release, and inability to entirely discount risk, it is appropriate to impose notification requirements on M.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • M made subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010
  • M may apply to have notification requirements removed after 5 years from date of release from custody