Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is it Legal?
I'm sitting on the fence at the moment concerning Gary Glitter's return to the UK, firstly let me say what he has been convicted of in Vietnam is wrong in the strongest sense... so where I am really struggling is the additional punishment he is now receiving from the UK establishment, as far as I am aware he has not been convicted or charged for any crime in the UK relating to the Vietnam abuse. Why then is it acceptable for the UK legal system to compell a UK citizen to sign a register, report to the police or even issue a FTO against him! I can't get my head around this as it's only a short stop away from things like motoring convictions abroad being held accountable in the UK ...
Is it legal or constitutional?
Is it legal or constitutional?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by toik1961. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This very point is discussed and answered here:
"But offenders who are prosecuted abroad and are deported back here after serving their sentence are still not required to sign the sex offender's register. They are free to travel and abuse children abroad again. The Ecpat report refers to a 77-year-old British offender who has been arrested six times in Thailand since 1991, for various serious offences. Yet despite this, he was free to travel back there again in March, when he was arrested for abusing an eight-year-old boy.
Gadd/Glitter has a previous offence of child pornography so he must re-sign the sex offender's register, and we are assured "will face up to five years in jail if he does keep to the rules". The reality is somewhat different; nearly all non-compliers are simply fined, often less than �100."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/a ug/22/ukcrime.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=u knews
In a nutshell, it is because he has already been convicted in the UK for child sex offences
"But offenders who are prosecuted abroad and are deported back here after serving their sentence are still not required to sign the sex offender's register. They are free to travel and abuse children abroad again. The Ecpat report refers to a 77-year-old British offender who has been arrested six times in Thailand since 1991, for various serious offences. Yet despite this, he was free to travel back there again in March, when he was arrested for abusing an eight-year-old boy.
Gadd/Glitter has a previous offence of child pornography so he must re-sign the sex offender's register, and we are assured "will face up to five years in jail if he does keep to the rules". The reality is somewhat different; nearly all non-compliers are simply fined, often less than �100."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/a ug/22/ukcrime.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=u knews
In a nutshell, it is because he has already been convicted in the UK for child sex offences
It is illegal, under European Law, for any country to punish a person for a crime for which they've already been punished in the country where that crime was committed.
However, under certain circumstances, a country can impose restrictions on the activities of certain people, where there are valid reasons to do so. For example, criminal convictions can bar people from public office or bankruptcy can bar people from holding directorships.
The borderline between 'punishment' and 'valid restrictions' is a fine one and, in regard to orders relating to sexual offences, has yet to be tested before the courts. However, every time the Home Secretary responds to media reports with a knee-jerk reaction, she is bringing closer the time when the courts will eventually rule that her actions amount to 'punishment' and are therefore unlawful.
Chris
However, under certain circumstances, a country can impose restrictions on the activities of certain people, where there are valid reasons to do so. For example, criminal convictions can bar people from public office or bankruptcy can bar people from holding directorships.
The borderline between 'punishment' and 'valid restrictions' is a fine one and, in regard to orders relating to sexual offences, has yet to be tested before the courts. However, every time the Home Secretary responds to media reports with a knee-jerk reaction, she is bringing closer the time when the courts will eventually rule that her actions amount to 'punishment' and are therefore unlawful.
Chris
1 to 3 of 3
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|