February 24, 2015
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Regina (Richards) v Teesside Magistrates' Court and Another Before Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Beatson and Lord Justice Fulford
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 conferred power to vary a sexual offences prevention order to require the person subject to it to wear a location monitoring device or electronic tag while away from his home address, consequently, the interference with that person's right to a private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was "in accordance with the law".
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Paul Richards, against the dismissal by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division ([2013] EWHC 2208 (QB)) of his claim against (i) the Teesside Magistrates' Court and (ii) the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police for judicial review of the variation of the sexual offences prevention order to which he was subject by including a requirement that he wear an electronic tag when away from his address or any other premises where he stayed overnight.
Mr Hugh Southey, QC, for the claimant; Mr Julian Knowles, QC and Ms Joan Smith for the chief constable. The magistrates' court did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE BEATSON said that the claimant's long history of offending included 12 sexual offences, and failure to comply with notification requirements under the sex offender registration provisions. As a result of concerns by the police who monitored him about the risk he posed, a sexual offences prevention order had been made in March 2012.
On an application by the chief constable the order had been varied to include, among other things, prohibitions on leaving or being away from his registered address without wearing an electronic tag, tampering with or removing the tag or failing to make the tag available on request for a police officer to inspect.
The Divisional Court dismissed the claim for judicial review, holding that sections 107 and 108 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 conferred sufficient power to impose the prohibitions in the variation to the order. The imposition of prohibitions necessary for the protection of the public from serious sexual harm were permitted by the 2003 act. The requirements added to the order were properly to be regarded as prohibitions, not mandatory requirements on the claimant. After reviewing the authorities his Lordship concluded that the approach taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial