Share:

Appeal allowed: A v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Abigail submitted for A that the statutory requirements for making a sexual harm prevention order were not met and that the appeal must be allowed.

A was convicted of a “qualifying offence” for the purposes of section 103A (‘Sexual harm prevention orders: applications and grounds’) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  This satisfied the first criterion for making the order because A was a qualifying offender pursuant to section 103A(3).

The next criterion for the Court to consider was whether the Respondent (the Commissioner) had demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that A (the Appellant) had acted in one or more of the ways that the Respondent alleged that he had acted.  Sexual harm means harm caused by the person committing one or more of the offences listed in Schedule 3 (‘Sexual offences for purposes of Part 2’).  

The Respondent’s case was that A had raped named women on dates in 2024 and 2022.  The Respondent called witness evidence on oath to substantiate those allegations against A.  Whilst the Crown Prosecution Service had discontinued those sets of prosecutions in the Crown Court, a sexual harm prevention order is intended to be preventative – and is not intended to be punitive.

The civil rules of evidence apply to applications for a sexual harm prevention order (‘SHPO’). The Court rejected the Respondent’s case that, on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not, on any one of the specified occasions, that A had committed rape.

The appeal was allowed at large after a hearing that was listed for a whole day due to the prosecution witness’ evidence. 

The Court revoked the sexual harm prevention order.

Martin Rackstraw and Nathan Weich at Russell-Cooke LLP instructed Abigail Bright to advise in writing, draft skeleton arguments and appear at the appeal for A.