sexual assault

[armstrong38]

someone i know was convicted of sexual asault 9ys ago they are in a relationship and the lady he is dating has a 3yr old boy is he aloud to be near a young child?

[laurence2]

was it a sexual assault on a child?

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

People who've been convicted of a sexual offences are generally free to go where they like, and associate with whom they like, unless they've been released from prison and are still 'on licence'. After 9 years, unless the offence was particularly serious, this is extremely unlikely.

Some offenders are made the subject of a Sex offender's Order which would make it an offence for them, say, to have 'unsupervised access' to a child under 16 years of age. These orders can be imposed both on offenders who are imprisoned and on those who receive non-custodial sentences. However, these orders normally operate for a fixed period of time. Even if such an order was imposed upon the person you refer to, it's likely that it will now have expired.

So, it's unlikely that the person will be committing any criminal offence simply by dating someone with a young child.

People convicted of sexual offences will be placed upon the sex offenders' register. This doesn't prevent the offender from associating with any person but, if the order was still in place, the offender would have to notify the police if he moved in with the woman (or, indeed, if he stayed at her house for 7 or more days in any one year period). Once again, though, it's likely that any order placing the person on the Sex Offenders' Register would have expired by now. (However, for a serious offence involving a lengthy custodial sentence, the registration might still be in place).

[Buenchico]

Each area now has a 'multi-agency public protection panel', consisting of representatives of the police, social services, education, etc. If it came to the notice of this panel (for any reason and without any time constraints) that a child was possibly at risk, they would be required to take appropriate action. They could, for example, authorise the police to disclose details about the offender's past to the woman and get social services to speak to her about it. If there were very serious concerns, they could even take the child into care. (They'd only do that in extreme circumstances and after warning the woman that this might occur if she didn't break off her relationship with the offender). What they'd have no right to do, however, would be to stop the man from seeing the woman. (Unless a prison licence or a sex offender's order are in place, the man is free to go where he likes and see who he likes).

In practice, the panel's actions would depend very much upon the nature of the offence. If the offence was against a child, they'd probably consider that there was an element of risk and initiate some form of action. If however, the man simply got drunk in a bar and allowed his hands to wander where they shouldn't with a female companion, it's unlikely that the authorities would regard this as a cause for immediate action. (NB: I'm not trying to justify any assault, however minor, on a woman. Neither am I suggesting that excess alcohol is ever a valid excuse for such behaviour. I'm simply stating that the public protection panel have to regard different types of assault as presenting different risk levels when they consider the protection of children).

Chris

[armstrong38]

The sex offence was on a twelve year old and the abuse was on his friends daughter he was convicted of sexual assault,has sexual intercourse didnt take place.

[Buenchico]

While the information which you've posted clarifies certain matters, it omits details of the sentence which was passed by the court. The period of a licence, or of the time for which an offender is on the Sex Offenders' Register, is determined by the sentence and not (directly) by the nature of the offences.

You don't specify the sex of the 12-year-old victim but, given that the other victim was female, I'll assume that it was a girl. Looking at it purely from a psychological viewpoint, I'd guess that it's unlikely that a person who would have 'desires' in respect of a 12-year-old girl, would also have any sexual interest in a 3-year-old boy. Despite this, the 'multi-agency public protection panel' might still have some concerns about this man's relationship with the mother of a young child.

If you want to express your own concerns to the 'authorities', I suggest that you phone the county (or regional) HQ of your local police force and ask to speak to an officer in the 'public protection department'. (Every police force should have one). Officers working in that department are responsible for collating 'intelligence' about individuals who are deemed to pose a risk to the public. Any information you provide will be treated in confidence and placed before the 'public protection panel'.

Chris