In Court
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059904600427 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
account prison and probation reports
assessing him as &dquo;a complete gentleman&dquo;
IN COURT
with a low risk of re-offending. Though
the full transcript of ex parte Oyston is not
yet available, the resulting press coverage
will almost certainly raise hopes among
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
convicted sex offenders. The case will be
School of Social Work, University of
detailed in the March 2000 ’In Court’
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
review.
judgements and other judicial
developments that inform sentencing,
early release and court welfare
.
practice.
mom
Two children, both boys, had been bom to
onim 1
unmarried parents whose relationship had
. _
,
,
been &dquo;troubled and tempestuous&dquo;. Justices
in the Family Proceedings Court later
On sentencing a man convicted of sexual
accepted that the father had been
offences to two years imprisonment, a
repeatedly violent to the mother and had
Crown Court Recorder erroneously
drunk to excess. In one incident the
informed him that he would be required to
mother alleged that the father had struck
register for five years. The correct period
her across the face with a beer can, an
for a term of that length is ten years.
injury leaving her partially sighted.
Dismissing his appeal, the Appeal Court
Following their separation, in the course
clarified that in specifying the registration
of acrimonious contact arrangements, two
period, the judge had not been making an
further episodes of violence occurred,
order of the court but had been acting in
leading to the father’s prosecution for
an advisory capacity, being under no legal
common
assault and the ending of his
duty to inform the offender of the relevant
contact. His application for a contact order
time. R
v RAWLINSON [ 1999] The Times
was refused by the justices.
27 October 1999.
Dismissing the father’s appeal, Wall J
in the Family Division agreed that the
justices had not put into the scales the
s
,
!i
!
positive factors of the father’s case,
,
# , ,
namely that he had enjoyed contact for 10
months following separation and that the
It is well established that long-term
oldest boy had a positive relationship with
prisoners should not be refused parole on
his father. He nevertheless felt that the
the basis simply that they deny
decision would have been the same and
responsibility for their offence. But what
there was a serious risk of direct contact
should the Parole Board heed in other
destabilising a fragile family unit. The
aspects of the applicant’s dossier that may
judge went on to make general
point to sufficiently reduced risk of
observations on cases of domestic
re-offending? A man convicted of rape of
violence:
a young woman aged 16, who had been
&dquo;It is often said that, notwithstanding
ineligible for the Sex Offender Treatment
the violence, the mother must
Programme and unsuccessful in his parole
nonetheless bring up the children with
application, has won his application for
a full knowledge and a positive image
judicial review on the basis that the Parole
of their natural father and arrange for
Board had failed to take into proper
the children to be available for contact.
282
Too often, it seems to me, the courts
Court ordered three supervised two hour
neglect the other side of the equation,
sessions a year in a contact centre. After
which is that the father must
two sessions, which had gone well, the
demonstrate that he is a fit person to
mother applied for...
To continue reading
Request your trial