Friday, 24 May 2013

There Can Be More Victims Than At First Sight

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Norwich child sex offender will not be re-sentenced

"A Norwich sexual offender who was given a suspended sentence for assaulting two young girls was not dealt with unduly leniently, the solicitor general has decided.

GK, 48, of [redacted], was given an 18-month suspended sentence for the sexual assaults on two girls aged seven and eight after being convicted at trial last month.

Judge Mark Lucraft said at the time he had to consider the “hardship” a prison sentence would cause for K’s wife and children, but the family of one of the victims accused the judge of being “too lenient”.

A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said yesterday: “Following a very careful review of this case the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP has decided not to refer the sentence of GK to the Court of Appeal, as he did not believe that the sentence for the offences would be increased by the Court of Appeal.”"

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

The Daily Mail - Struggling To Begin To Understand The Concepts Of Risk, Law And Rights

PUBLISHED: 23:57, 6 May 2013 | UPDATED: 23:58, 6 May 2013

Child rapists taken of Sex Offenders' Register [sic] in secret [sic] ... and police say it's to protect their human rights

">Sex attackers can be removed from register [sic] if they 'no longer pose a threat'
>43 applications for removal from Sex Offenders' Register [sic] approved in a year
>Successful applicants include eight rapists and 27 child sex attackers

Off the hook: Since the law changed last year, 43 applications for removal from the Sex Offenders' Register [sic] have been approved

Police have secretly [sic] removed dozens of convicted sex offenders, including paedophiles [sic] and rapists, from the Sex Offenders’ Register [sic], the Mail can reveal.

Following a human rights ruling, the law was changed last year to allow sex attackers [sic] to claim they no longer posed a threat and apply to be taken off the register.

Since then, 43 applications have been approved behind closed doors, at the rate of one every five days.

About half of those who apply have been successful – including eight rapists and 27 child sex attackers.

Each case was signed off by a mid-ranking police officer following a paper review of the case. With the stroke of a pen, each convict [sic] was removed from the list, and is now free to walk the streets with no monitoring of any kind [sic].

Those who are taken off the register no longer have to tell the police where they are living, even if they move near a school, or move in with a family with young children.

Nor do they have to tell the police about any overseas travel.

Forces are refusing to name those taken off the register [sic], citing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – and data protection rules. And they say it would ‘compromise the health and safety of these individuals’ to name them.

Some are even refusing to give details of the offences committed [well, how odd !!!], and victims are not routinely notified if their attacker has been deemed no longer a threat [well, how odd !!!].

Child protection charities said the use of the law was setting back child protection, and questioned whether sex offenders could ever be reformed." [well, they would]

Sex offenders secretly removed from register

UK quietly shrinks sex offenders list

Suffolk: Rapists taken off sex offenders’ register after human rights challenge

Four removed from sex offenders register in Suffolk

Sex offenders taken off register secretly 

07 May 2013

Concerns raised over removals from sex offenders register

"When the changes were accepted in 2011, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a statement, saying: “Protecting the public from harm is a fundamental role for the police service but we recognise that this must be balanced with the rights of individuals, as highlighted by the Supreme Court judgement. We have worked closely with the Home Office and other key partners to develop a robust review process that ensures a full assessment of the risks posed before an offender is removed from the notification requirements.

"The reality is that the risks posed by some offenders can never be completely eliminated, but we will continue to do all in our power to keep them to a minimum and believe that the proposed review process strikes the right balance between individual rights and public safety."

However, Diana Johnson MP, Shadow Crime and Security Minister, said: “These revelations are highly worrying. When a judge has put someone on the sex offenders register it means that they are a convicted sex offender who poses a real threat to the public – not least to children. These people need to be kept on the sex offenders register, helping the police to protect the public.

“It may be politically convenient for Theresa May to blame this on the Human Rights Act, but the truth is that she brought these new rules in before looking at alternatives and made it too easy for someone to be taken off the register. More worrying still, this could be the tip of the iceberg. There are more than 28,000 people on the sex offenders register indefinitely - all of whom are dangerous offenders."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "Sex offenders who remain a risk to the public will stay on the register, for life if necessary.

"The law changed following a Supreme Court ruling. We argued strongly that sex offenders should stay on the register for life. But the Supreme Court decided they should be able to apply for a review of their case to determine whether or not their names could be removed."

Email sent to Ms Johnson - still no reply, on 11/5/13.


What The Future Holds: Sex Offender In The City [Updated]

Pervert [offensive and inflammatory] charter: Human rights for convicts [sic] but hell for people like Jimmy Tarbuck and Rolf Harris

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

One More Result

Published at 13:44, Monday, 22 April 2013

Cumbria police infringed man's human rights, rules High Court judge

"Cumbria police unlawfully infringed a teacher’s human rights by refusing to remove detail of a woman’s harassment allegation from a “criminal record certificate” available to potential employers, a High Court judge has ruled.

The force's decision was a “disproportionate and unjustifiable” breach of the 44-year-old man’s right to private life, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, said Mr Justice Stuart-Smith.

Police had investigated the 18-year-old’s complaint and concluded that “no further action” should be taken and disclosure of the allegation had dealt a “killer blow” to the teacher’s employment prospects, said the judge.

The physical education teacher - who cannot be named for legal reasons - is expected to seek damages.

Mr Justice Stuart-Smith announced his decision in a written ruling after a hearing at the High Court in London in March."

Cumbria police force infringed PE teacher's rights

Teacher clears name over pupil harassment allegation

Cumbria Police infringed teacher's human rights

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Delays To Reforms To The ROA 1974

UNLOCK > Information Hub Update: Delays to reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Spent Convictions

December 2012

Is it spent now?

1. Introduction

"This guide explains the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) which the Government has made through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). It does not explain how the current ROA works (that is covered on our Information Hub and will be updated once the changes come into force)."

'Is it spent now?' - New brief guide on changes to the ROA (UNLOCK Forum)


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Explanatory Notes - Chapter 8: Rehabilitation of offenders

"48. Chapter 8 contains a package of changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (“the ROA”) to amend the scope of the Act and its rehabilitation periods. The amendments extend the scope of the ROA so that custodial sentences of up to and including 4 years in length can become ‘spent’. The times at which different convictions become ‘spent’ are also amended, and in most cases the rehabilitation periods are reduced. Where a caution or conviction has become spent, the offender is treated as rehabilitated in respect of that offence and is not obliged to declare it for most purposes, for example, when applying for employment or insurance."

CHAPTER 8: Rehabilitation of offenders



The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012  (2906)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2012  (2824)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Children Act 1989) (Children Remanded to Youth Detention Accommodation) Regulations 2012 (2813)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 3 and Saving Provision) Order 2012 (2770)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 2 and Specification of Commencement Date) Order 2012 -18th September 2012 (2412)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2012 - 24th July 2012 (1956)


Regarding 'drag through'/further convictions ...

'Then' (pre-LASPO 2012) ...

Further Convictions

"Further convictions

If a rehabilitation period is still running and the offender commits a ‘summary’ offence, a minor offence that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court, the minor offence will not affect the rehabilitation period for the other offence; each offence will expire separately."

What is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

"What happens if I get another caution or conviction before my first conviction becomes spent?

If you already have an unspent conviction (not including unspent conditional cautions), and you get a further caution or conviction before the earlier conviction has become spent, one of the following will apply:

1. If your later outcome is a caution (either a simple caution or a conditional caution), reprimand or warning, neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the caution for the later offence will become spent after the normal period (immediately for a simple caution or three months for a conditional caution).

2. If your later outcome is a conviction for a summary offence, (one that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court), neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the conviction for the later offence will become spent after the normal period.

3. If your later outcome is a conviction for an either way or an indictable offence (one which could be tried in the Crown Court) then neither conviction will become spent until the rehabilitation period for both offences are over.

4. If your later outcome is a conviction that results in a prison sentence of more than 2 ½ years then neither the second nor the first conviction will ever become spent.

Once a conviction becomes spent, it remains spent, even if a person is convicted of other offences later."

'Now' (post-LASPO 2012) ...

3.4 Increasing Some Rehabilitation Periods

"a) Further convictions 

Currently, the rehabilitation periods for further convictions for summary offences run separately from other unspent convictions. However, further triable either-way and indictable offences ‘drag through’ existing unspent convictions, extending their rehabilitation period until the last one is spent. Following the changes, all offences will create this ‘drag through’ effect, including summary."

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs - Few Equal Opportunities For Us

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs - Few Equal Opportunities For Us

In 1997, what may have appeared to be a reasonable and beneficial idea, towards a better society, has now become a living nightmare for many individuals and families.

Since that time, mission creep, populist political posturing and law-making, along with the vested interests of the media, lobby groups and a stifling regime of policing, has led to fear, disenfranchisement and little hope towards a worthy future for these people and their families.

This, not small, group of UK citizens, some isolated and poverty-stricken for no good reason, has little real support, a limited ability to fight for their Civil and Human Rights and some, quite unacceptably, live in constant fear of attack or harassment.

So, who can these people be? Who is this sizeable, yet, apparently, invisible group? Who could be suffering so much and yet be receiving so little attention? This group of people are the so-called ‘Sex Offenders’ and their families. This group includes me. Thank You.

Uploaded by: CriticalEstoppelMM on Jul 3, 2010,
Topic: The Creation of Fresh Pariahs,
Section: Few Equal Opportunities For Us,
Creator: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield July 2010.
Video Entry to The Times/Herbert Smith Advocacy Competition, 2010

The full piece ...

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs

The SOA 1997 was seen, by many, to be a reasonable piece of legislation. What responsible person could argue that those dangerous to society (particularly in a sexual manner) should not have their personal details made easily-available (amongst other rationalisations), allowing the authorities to access them in times of criminal crisis?

Since that time, a raft of related Statutes, Instruments and related Case Law have led to, what the authorities like to describe as “… some of the most stringent laws governing sex offenders in the world …" (1). It certainly is this, but it is a great deal more. It has now led to a Pariah status for thousands of citizens, who, until quite recently, would not only not have been perceived (or assessed to be) a danger to society, but would not have been criminals at all. It would be nice to believe that these unfortunate actions may have had a positive effect on reducing the number of sexual offences, but that has not been the case

Fortunately, in the last few years, we have seen some inklings of rationality illuminating the courts, within this arena (2-5), however, much damage has been done and continues to be done, for little good reason. Society is now so illogically-fearful of, and hate-directed to, the ‘Sex Offender’, to a point where it is, essentially, impossible to have a rational, evidenced-based, discussion in the public, or even academic, arena.

It is proposed, that this is only one (particularly effective) vehicle to maintain and build empires, and to extend and introduce further surveillance, monitoring, vetting and control regimes, which are now being applied to those, regardless of the nature of an earlier crime, or even for those without a criminal record. (6)

The issue of social and personal impact has been introduced in the Presentation. It is impossible to find any other UK minority, where certain individuals (7) and groups are treated (quite legally, in many examples), in such an appalling, inequitable and devastating manner.

It is my proposition, that we live in a time and place of absolute hysteria, regarding ‘Sexual Offending’, and that this has not arisen by accident. I also propose that the present legal (including ineffective advocates), judicial, academic and media reaction to ‘Sexual Offending’ does more harm than good (by a number of measures) and this is, evidentially, the case.


(1) Beckford, M. and Stokes, P. (2010), Human rights laws stopped Home Office tracking sex offenders’ emails, The Telegraph, March 10, 2010 <> Accessed May 27, 2010 (media website).

(2) The BBC (2008), Sex offenders win rights ruling, BBC News, December 19, 2008 <> Accessed May 27, 2010 (media website); R (on the application of F (by his litigation friend F)) and Thompson (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2009] EWCA Civ 792 <> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law website).

(3) HeraldScotland (2010), Scots sex offenders win human rights fight, The Herald, May 20, 2010 <> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(4) This is Bristol (2009), Prison sentences for child porn cut, Evening Post, December 6, 2009 <> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(5) Garden Court North Chambers (2008), Imprisonment for Public Protection, February 27, 2008 <> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law company website); R v Alexander James Terrell [2007] EWCA Crim 3079 <> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law website).

(6) Russell, J. (2009), Paranoia casts volunteers as perverts, The Sunday Times, December 13, 2009 <> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(7) Ozimek, J.F. (2010), Sex offender downloads child pr0n to get back into prison - A purely practical measure, The Register, June 18, 2010 <> Accessed June 5, 2010 (media website).



Sunday, 14 April 2013

Welcome To SOAP2

Name: SOAP2 - 'Sex Offenders' Are People Too

Category: Organisations - Advocacy Organisations

A society, whether on-line or off, includes all its members. All members have equivalent legal, human and civil rights, to that membership, and to enjoy the right to a private life, free from severe offence, fear and harassment.

This means, free speech must be balanced against these rights. There are many people who believe their right to free speech is absolute; this is not correct. However, we do believe it should be enabled, as much as is reasonably possible.

The function of SOAP2, is to enable a legal, monitored, environment, for those interested in, or affected by, this aspect of our communities.

SOAP2 is also a portal for clarification, legal and research requests, so as to challenge the lies and misinformation, which are propagated and believed, by many.  Such fallacies lead to real damage, suffering and the death of many people.

SOAP2 is also the focal point, for lobbying, for our legal and civil rights, with the authorities.

It is not an organisation for the discussion of peripheral, if related, issues; such facilities exist, elsewhere; please email us, if you have any doubts about your input. All posts are moderated.

You may 'join' under a bonafide identity, as that shows integrity and honesty, but, we are sure you will appreciate the potential dangers, associated with doing so; this is your decision. You may, of course, contact us via our email.

Anything which contradicts the aims and objectives, stated above (count them as our ToS, open to change), or is against Blogger's or SOAP2's ToS, will not be tolerated.


Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield, Administrator, SOAP2