Successful representations regarding prohibitions of a Sexual Risk Order (SRO)
Successful representations regarding prohibitions of a Sexual Risk Order
Lily Nutbrown was instructed by a client as the police had made an application for a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) against him.
Background:
The client was initially under investigation for an alleged offence of possession of indecent images of children, in relation to which the firm represented him. Ultimately, no illegal material was identified. However, there was a significant volume of material suggesting a sexual interest in children’s feet, together with evidence of contact with children’s feet in the course of his employment as a teacher.
As a result, the police applied for a Sexual Risk Order (SRO). This is a civil order which allows the court to impose prohibitions on an individual where it is satisfied that they have committed an act of a sexual nature and that it is necessary to make the order for the purpose of:
· protecting the public, or any particular members of the public, from harm; or
· protecting children or vulnerable adults, whether generally or individually, including outside the United Kingdom.
The test applied by the court is the civil standard of proof, meaning the threshold is lower than in criminal proceedings. As a result, such orders are often granted. However, there is frequently merit in carefully scrutinising and, where appropriate, challenging the necessity and proportionality of the prohibitions sought.
Our Approach:
When a client instructs us in relation to a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) application, we undertake a careful and structured review of the application and order sought. Our first step is to assess whether the police can meet the legal test required for the imposition of an SRO. If the evidential threshold is not met, we will challenge the application in its entirety.
Where it is likely that an order will be granted, our focus shifts to scrutinising the proposed prohibitions. It is essential that any conditions imposed are both necessary and proportionate. Overly broad or intrusive restrictions can have a significant impact on a client’s personal and professional life, and should be challenged where appropriate.
In this case, upon reviewing the draft order, we identified a number of prohibitions that were neither necessary nor proportionate. These included:
· A restriction effectively preventing all contact with children, which was excessively broad
· Provisions that could result in the monitoring of work devices, with potential implications for the client’s employment
We made detailed representations to the police addressing these concerns. Some amendments were agreed prior to the court hearing. The remaining issues were contested before the court, resulting in a favourable outcome for the client.
Outcome
A Sexual Risk Order (SRO) was ultimately granted; however, the prohibitions imposed were limited to those that were necessary and proportionate. The final terms were workable for the client and avoided undue interference with his employment and broader rights.
