“A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex. … The order – which was drawn up by magistrates in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and extended in York – reads: ‘You must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth. You must do this at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place.'” The order also limits his access to the internet and cellphones and requires him to notify police should he change his residence.
“Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime. They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.” Note, again, that according to the reports he was acquitted of the charge, not convicted. [BBC York and North Yorkshire News, Guardian]
9 Comments
Seriously – it’s under “civil” proceedings that an omnipotent state could be created while our rights “under the criminal justice process” remain scrupulously observed.
On the joking side – Jay Leno once said (apropos of a medication): “The problem is, men don’t KNOW when they’re going to have sex. Only WOMEN know when men are going to have sex.”
Guilty even after being proved innocent. Nice. Britain is gone.
We went years ago.
Still, at least we can avoid putting people on the sexual offenders register for having a wizz in the alleyway đŸ™‚
Of course the police would want to interview the woman beforehand, then possibly set up a camera. After that kind of pre-positioning who among us could follow through with the act?
Hmmm. The order seems to leave the path open for spontaneous homosexuality. And would it be a violation if he told them to go #*%! themselves?
It would be remotely defensible if, in prosecuting him, they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that he had violated the order, but also that he had done something sufficiently heinous beforehand to justify the order. Even that, however, would not meet American Bill of Rights standards.
In reality, of course, no such safeguard is intended.
Nothing like what happened in England would ever happen in the US. Nah. Not at all.
A 19-year-old Roanoke College student was accused of rape in March 2015 by a college freshman. He was charged by the district attorney, but it took a jury just 25 minutes to find him not guilty at the end of a trial that lasted one day. A campus sexual misconduct hearing also found him not responsible.
Case closed, right? Wrong, of course.
When the student, who is from Zimbabwe, re-enrolled in Roanoke, campus activists started an online petition in an effort to bar him from campus, citing safety concerns.
…..
Despite the accused student being found not guilty in a court of law and a campus hearing, campus activists started a petition to keep him off campus, saying “a mahority [sic] of the student body will be put at risk.” The petition also said “no female student will be able to feel safe” if the accused student (who was, again, found not guilty) is allowed to return.
Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-cleared-of-rape-still-not-welcome-at-his-college/article/2581088
“Not Guilty” is no the same as “proved innocent”. The jury may have believed he was innocent, or merely have had a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
From what I read about the order, it is granted when police can convince a judge that the target is a real danger to society, based on evidence to back their suspicion rather than proof of any actual crime being committed. It need not have been tied to this trial at all. The UK certainly has no qualms about restricting the activities of suspected terrorists before they commit atrocities either, and has a long history of suppressing individual rights when society at large is thought to be at risk – e.g., the longest right to hold a prisoner without charge, significantly so for a long time (90 days, vs. 2nd place country was 7 days when this was passed), and for a long time that was unlimited if you were thought to be an Irish terrorist.
While the incredibly intrusive requirement to register intent of sexual activity is great click-bait for the web (thank you, UK gov) I am much more concerned with restrictions on his access to phones and the internet, which are a more essential component of daily life these days. Of course, he does not have to register every phone he purchases/has access to with the policy, only those that are capable of connecting to the internet, sending/receiving text messages, or placing phone calls, So yes, basically every kind of phone, but probably also non-phones like tablets too. Last time I was there, phones were an increasingly integral part of UK life, such that I could not buy a ticket at a car park without a phone (the ticket machines were decommissioned, purchase-by-text-message was the only option). So that part of the order should not be underestimated and is likely far more disruptive on a daily basis, and for good measure, probably needs disclosing to your employer too – how many jobs these days never touch a phone or the internet?
Again, all without being convicted of any crime.
I think this young man should just text to the cops: “Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, April 21.” Every 2 minutes, around the clock.
He may intend to have relations with the Queen, but if she is not willing, well, tomorrow is another day.
I suspect that the real intent of this order is to be a trap as the order is extraordinarily unlikely to be able to be fulfilled under normal circumstances. Thus if the police get another complaint, they can check and see if he registered with the police a day in advance. If not, then regardless of the validity/strength of the complaint, they can bust him for violating the order.
This is absolutely not an endorsement of what they are doing. At best, it is essentially a scarlet letter. At worst it is prosecution/punishment without a defined end.