June 9, 2025
Four Sexual Offences Trials with Not Guilty Verdicts where the Disputed Issue was Consent
Back to News & Blog
Juliet Osborne Successfully Opposes Interim Sexual Risk Order Application by the Police
Read this article to understand what an application for a Sexual Risk Order is, and why Juliet Osborne persuading Northampton Magistrates' Court not to oppose an Interim Sexual Risk Order application is such a success!
What is a Sexual Risk Order?
Applications for a Sexual Risk Order will usually be made in cases where a complaint of a sexual nature has been made against a person, but a prosecution is unlikely to follow because of insufficient evidence. This is often, but not always, due to the complainant not supporting a prosecution. This is problematic from a Defence perspective for several reasons, in particular because any evidence presented in relation to a Sexual Risk Order application is likely to be hearsay. Moreover, it will never be tested to the full criminal standard of proof of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. In other words, this means the police can obtain a Sexual Risk Order against somebody based on information which would not be sufficient for a criminal conviction. Keep in mind that breach of a Sexual Risk Order is a criminal offence carrying up to 5 years’ imprisonment, and you can see the Defence concern.
Successfully opposing an Interim Sexual Risk Order application before the magistrates’ court is a difficult task because of the risk-averse approach the courts take
Under section 122A Sexual Offences Act 2003, the police may apply to a magistrates’ court for a Sexual Risk Order against a defendant prohibiting and/or requiring certain conduct. Typical conditions include:
- prohibitions against contact with certain groups of people, for example, children;
- registering Internet-enabled devices with the police;
- requiring a defendant to allow the police access to their home address to confirm compliance with prohibitions under the order.
If an application for a Sexual Risk Order is opposed, it will proceed to a full contested hearing. However, the police will usually apply for an Interim Sexual Risk Order under s122E Sexual Offences Act 2003 to cover the period between the initial application and the full hearing. The test the Court applies to impose an Interim Sexual Risk Order is different to that for a full order. Breach of an Interim Sexual Risk Order is also criminal offence, punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment.
The test to impose an Interim Sexual Risk Order is as follows:
The court may, if it considers it just to do so, make an interim sexual risk order.
This is a very broad test. Often, police applications for Interim Sexual Risk Orders go unchallenged. Opposing such applications can be an uphill struggle due to risk-averse approaches taken by the courts. To put it another way, it appears that magistrates’ courts often take a ‘no smoke without fire’ view of the application and decide it is safer to impose an interim order pending dealing with the fully contested application.
What Happened in this Application for an Interim Sexual Risk Order?
Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers was instructed by the client on a privately-funded basis in relation to an application before Northampton Magistrates’ Court. The police served our client with a court summons containing the Sexual Risk Order applications and a statement from a police officer detailing a number of allegations against him, along with a lengthy hearsay notice. On receiving the summons, the client contacted Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers; our Juliet Osborne volunteered to take the case.
To prepare for the case, Juliet took instructions from the client in relation to the allegations, which he denied. The impact such an order would have upon him became clear upon speaking with him. Juliet took time and care to prepare her submissions to the court to oppose the making of an interim order. She analysed the evidence and prepared arguments to undermine the police argument that it was just to make an interim order.
Juliet carefully prepared the case, took detailed instructions from our client, and fearlessly opposed the application in court, leading to an excellent (and rare!) result for the client
In the hearing before Northampton Magistrates’ Court, Juliet made forceful submissions in opposition to the police’s application, pointing to:
- a lack of evidence to support the application,
- the client’s previous good character, and
- the various ways in which the order would be detrimental to our client’s life and livelihood.
Juliet successfully persuaded the magistrate, who retired for 59 minutes to consider what they had heard, that it would not be just to impose an interim sexual risk order in advance of the full contested hearing.
Successfully opposing an Interim Sexual Risk Order application before the magistrates’ court is a difficult task because of the risk-averse approach the courts take, coupled with the low threshold to make an order. Juliet carefully prepared the case, took detailed instructions from our client, and fearlessly opposed the application in court, leading to an excellent (and rare!) result for the client. Juliet is one of our Pupil Barristers and, at the time of this hearing, had only been ‘on her feet’ for a few weeks. The fact that this was her first contested hearing speaks volumes of her advocacy skills, her ability to analyse evidence, and her aptitude in advancing a persuasive argument before a court.
If you have received a summons in relation to an application for a sexual risk order or sexual harm prevention order, or if you are facing prosecution for a sexual offence, contact Hill Twine Solicitors & Barristers as soon as possible to find out how we can help you.
You may be interested in reading these posts to learn more about our expertise in defending those accused of sexual offences. Or, read more about our Criminal Defence work on our News & Blog page:
If you have any questions or need advice