Cleared of Rape Charges? Report Sexual Activity Beforehand or Go to Jail Anyway!

[autolongarm]

My husband sent this to me and I thought it was interesting. We're moving out of "Neo New York" by March and this just adds more reasons to the pile. Take a look.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

"A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex.

The man, in his 40s, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted in 2015 at a retrial after claiming the alleged victim had consented.

An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.

It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.

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."

It also contains restrictions on his use of the internet and mobile phone devices and requires him to inform officers of any change of address.

A further court hearing in May will decide whether the interim order should be made into a full order, which has a minimum duration of two years and can last indefinitely.

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.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Seriously? The hell is this?

This is very much a bizarre law. Does Great Britain have a equivalent to the Supreme Court? Because this seems like something a Supreme Court like entity should be sorting the fuck out.

 

[autolongarm]

Judging by the information it seems like there's a lot of information being left out though. For example he can't be named for legal reasons, which is incredibly unusual for someone who isn't underage, and the police have gone out of their way to request this. From that information alone I guess it was a case of "not guilty", rather than "innocent", and the police and courts wanted to restrict him.

It might be a matter of the journalists being careful. Look at it like this, even if he's innocent, the mere notion of him being accused pretty much puts his financial livelihood at risk. If it gets out, the simple fact that he was accused means he'll be shunned socially, employers will trump up reasons to wash their hands of him, and he may very well be singled out by vigilantes or modern-day witch hunters.

Several men at the company that I work have been forced to transfer branches or move to different cities for this very reason. I've been drawn into investigations to clear more than one coworker of wrongdoing, but once the rumors get out on "confidential investigations" it's pretty much game over.

 

[Asita]

I...what? "24 hours prior to any sexual activity"? Barring special occasions (anniversaries, for instance) with steady paramours, who actually plans sex that far in advance? Encounters where sex might happen, sure, but seriously the first thing that came to my mind here was that this was a passive aggressive way of saying "hey, be celibate".

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

So, you aren't a rapist, but you're treated like one anyway? What a glorious land we live in! Just to be safe, I suggest all men and women must report sexual activity to the government 24 hours in advance. In fact, let's just give everyone a sex monitoring chip! The glorious future as depicted by Futurama awaits us! Guilty even when proven innocent. Wonderful.

What else is there to say. This guy is clearly never going to get laid again. "Hey, I'd really like to pork you, but first I'll need your full name, date of birth, and address. Why? Oh, well I was acquitted of rape charges, but- What, no goodbye kiss?!" I wonder if they're not going to allow him to visit porn sites.

 

[Parasondox]

So, you aren't a rapist, but you're treated like one anyway? What a glorious land we live in! Just to be safe, I suggest all men and women must report sexual activity to the government 24 hours in advance. In fact, let's just give everyone a sex monitoring chip! The glorious future as depicted by Futurama awaits us! Guilty even when proven innocent. Wonderful.

What else is there to say. This guy is clearly never going to get laid again. "Hey, I'd really like to pork you, but first I'll need your full name, date of birth, and address. Why? Oh, well I was acquitted of rape charges, but- What, no goodbye kiss?!" I wonder if they're not going to allow him to visit porn sites.

Not just this land but so many others. As soon as you are linked to any kind of accusation of a sexual offence, the mud sticks. Your name is in the media, if not hidden and their are some people who are... stupid to still think, "well even though he had nothing to do with it, he still looks rapey".

Guilty until proven otherwise has been noted and its fucking stupid!!

 

[Wary Wolf]

Hmm... The sentence seems to be in relation to:

Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPO) can be made in relation to a person who has been convicted, found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged, or cautioned etc. for an offence listed in either Schedule 3 or Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 either in the UK or overseas

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/ancillary-orders/21-sexual-harm-prevention-orders/

So there is the possibility that the guy is insane or... disabled (???).

Oh wait. This in regards to "interim sexual risk order". And Holy Shit:

It is not necessary for the defendant to have a prior conviction for a sexual offence in order to apply for an SRO. The court can make an order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting the public in the UK or children or vulnerable adults abroad.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442151/2015-07-03_FINAL_Guidance_Part_2_SOA_2003.pdf

(edit: hit find: interim sexual risk order)

NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE A PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A SEXUAL OFFENCE!?!

I tried to go into this objectively, thinking there must be another side to this story, but looking at this wishy washy legality...

Bugger me sideways and get convicted of a sexual risk order, this is moronic.

I wonder if they're not going to allow him to visit porn sites.

They can if they want to:

SHPOs may be used to limit and manage internet use by an offender, where it is considered proportionate and necessary to do so.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/ancillary-orders/21-sexual-harm-prevention-orders/

Sorry, they can if they *have* to.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

How the hell would they even prove it if he did have sex without telling them? Do they go through his garbage and looked for used condoms? Is he under 24/7 surveillance?

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

So if I am a woman, and press charge for rape in any UK man and he has to live like a criminal for the rest of the life?

What a wondrous world we live in. This will certainly make interesting twist to my (under development) blackmail scam.

 

[mardocOz]

My initial thought of "What the actual fuck" is probably what the journalist who wrote this article was looking for with his clickbait-esque headline.

The way the article is written does set off my leftist sensibilities and, yes, it does seem to be ludicrous and a case of "Guilty until proven innocent" at first glance. However I tend to find that when something seems so stupid that it can't possibly be true then... well, often it is. But I don't think so in this case, or rather I feel that we're not being given the whole story.

I imagine it's what we're NOT told that's the most important aspects of this particular news article. Why, exactly, have the courts decided to follow this course of action? Why are they unable to name the defendant for "legal reasons" when in other cases the media most certainly are? What were the specifics regarding the allegations? The nature of the evidence? The testimonies of the witnesses and the "victim". There are likely circumstances related to this case that make this course of action more understandable. I mean, on paper it still sounds bonkers, but as we are not privy to all the information I don't want to form a definitive opinion. Not yet, anyway.

 

[Something Amyss]

So if I am a woman, and press charge for rape in any UK man and he has to live like a criminal for the rest of the life?

Except the current order is for four months (not life), and this is clearly not being treated as the norm.

My initial thought of "What the actual fuck" is probably what the journalist who wrote this article was looking for with his clickbait-esque headline.

Yeah, this seems tailor-made to trip the outrage centers of our minds.

 

[sXeth]

Lacking a complete picture of the facts, it sounds like some sort of settlement. As if the case were a tenous or stalemated, but they agreed to clear the charges and legally block his name out if he took on the restriction order.

 

[Wary Wolf]

Lacking a complete picture of the facts, it sounds like some sort of settlement. As if the case were a tenous or stalemated, but they agreed to clear the charges and legally block his name out if he took on the restriction order.

Isn't this a criminal case though? As such, they don't generally have 'settlements' rather, plea bargains.

In criminal matters, the closest parallel to a settlement is a plea bargain, although this differs in several important respects, particularly the ability of the presiding judge to reject the terms of a settlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)

I agree we don't have all the facts, and if this is actually true (I agree with Miss Amyss, this is likely click-bait), hopefully an actual protest will occur.

What generally bugs me is that if it sets a precedent. And if the man unjustly takes it on the shoulder (eg. was made to *feel* guilty) or doesn't take it to the higher courts (eh, that is a significant effort and the current sentence doesn't bother me that much) then we have a step closer to less sexy times.

Still I guess that it's one way of getting more court cases, keeping legals in work.

So, who wants to come back to my place in 24 hours after filling out some consensual paperwork?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Sounds like laws that would delight those angry old people on Facebook who demand we conduct medical experiments on sex offenders rather than animals...

 

[Wary Wolf]

On careful reflection, one of the few actual reasons for this law might be in regards to statutory rape. The lamest of rape. It might be to address some of the issues in regards to "gray areas" pertaining to statutory rape charges.

I can't see a sexual risk order being used for actual indictable offences though. Those found innocent should not be sentenced regardless, and those that are actually victims are unlikely to appreciate the law if it fails to deliver justice...

One other issue that does bug me with this law though is the police involvement that sort of goes against the whole "Separation of Power" idea. Again, a sort of gray area, but open to possible abuse. I guess it depends on the implementation there. Just seems a bit iffy to me personally.

 

[mad825]

My initial thought of "What the actual fuck" is probably what the journalist who wrote this article was looking for with his clickbait-esque headline.

The way the article is written does set off my leftist sensibilities and, yes, it does seem to be ludicrous and a case of "Guilty until proven innocent" at first glance. However I tend to find that when something seems so stupid that it can't possibly be true then... well, often it is. But I don't think so in this case, or rather I feel that we're not being given the whole story.

I imagine it's what we're NOT told that's the most important aspects of this particular news article. Why, exactly, have the courts decided to follow this course of action? Why are they unable to name the defendant for "legal reasons" when in other cases the media most certainly are? What were the specifics regarding the allegations? The nature of the evidence? The testimonies of the witnesses and the "victim". There are likely circumstances related to this case that make this course of action more understandable. I mean, on paper it still sounds bonkers, but as we are not privy to all the information I don't want to form a definitive opinion. Not yet, anyway.

It's not unusual in the UK for the justice system to discriminate men when it's a rape/sexual assault charge. What tends to happen is that defendant is named and shamed before an actual judge or jury have a chance to review the case.

Like one poster said, a deal out of the courts has been made. Exclusivity it seems with police only....That said, I would have to question the legality of deal - specifically if it can be enforced.

 

[gLoveofLove]

And you thought it was embarrassing to ask your roommate to make themselves scarce for the night and it not go anywhere. Imagine having to rock up to the police station the next morning, "She said she had to get up early..."