 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Saw a story on the BBC news website today which on first reading sounds a little harsh on the guy who it's been applied for.
To surmise, and you can go and read the whole story over there if you wish:
"A man who must give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex after he was cleared of rape has said the ruling "puts an end to your life".
The man, in his 40s, was acquitted last year at a retrial.
He has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the pin to his phone.
He accused North Yorkshire Police, which declined to comment, of "sour grapes" in applying for a sexual risk order after the case.
The order requires him to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales 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.
He said: "Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.
He gave the example of chatting to a woman and saying: "There's a nice French restaurant I'd like to take you to, but first the police are just going to come around for a little chat."
"Knock, knock, knock, this is the police, (Mr X) is subject to a sexual risk order and is considered to be potentially dangerous... then they leave."
It's always difficult to comment without knowing the full specifics of a case, but it does make you wonder how the guy, previously found innocent in court could realistically expect to form a normal relationship with anyone in the future whilst this 'order' is in place.
I know there's a need to balance the risk going forward against a person's freedoms but if you're found innocent, then you surely have the right to a normal life going forward?
You could even argue that by denying him the ability to form a normal relationship in this way, it becomes more likely that he'll do something illegal to get his sexual satisfaction (though by saying that I'm not justifying it, just stating a possibility).
What do you all think?
"
I read this article and thought, he was found not-guilty.... wheres the issue? Obviously we don't have details, but to me he has been imprisoned without any further charges brought against him; is that we do in this country now?
If the police believe he is dangerous can't they prove this some way and then have him incarcerated in the correct institution? Or are we all now to be subject to restrictions because what we may potentially do? Because that is a world I don't want to live in.... |
