## Facts

- Andrew Sadler, a British national, was convicted in Romania (2000) of serious sexual offences against a young male; he denied guilt, and his appeal failed though the sentence was reduced.
- After returning to the United Kingdom, concerns arose when a 15-year-old boy (NP) stayed overnight at Sadler’s flat on three occasions in 2007.
- Police obtained an interim Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) in May 2007; Sadler breached it when NP was found at his address in June 2007 and was fined.
- In November 2007, the Worcester magistrates’ court made a full SOPO under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, imposing broad restrictions on contact with minors and related conduct.
- Sadler appealed the making of the SOPO to the Crown Court; the appeal was dismissed in 2008.
- After the five-year statutory period, Sadler applied to discharge the SOPO under s.108; the magistrates refused to discharge it (with minor variations not in issue), relying on evidence including expert and police risk assessments and Sadler’s travel abroad viewed as relevant to risk.
- Sadler sought to adduce evidence from NP that nothing improper happened during the 2007 stays; the magistrates excluded NP’s evidence as irrelevant or marginal.
- Sadler appealed by case stated to the Divisional Court, arguing primarily that excluding NP’s evidence was an error of law and that the SOPO should have been discharged.

## Issues

1. What is the proper approach on an application to discharge a SOPO under s.108 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 after the original order has been upheld on appeal?
2. Whether discharge ordinarily requires a material change in circumstances showing the order is no longer necessary, rather than renewed argument that the order should never have been made.
3. Whether the magistrates erred in law by excluding NP’s evidence and, if admitted, whether it could have affected the necessity/risk assessment.
4. Whether the magistrates’ refusal to discharge was legally flawed due to misdirection or an outcome not open to them on the evidence.

## Decision

- The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to discharge the SOPO.
- The court held that a s.108 discharge application is forward-looking and not a vehicle to reopen the correctness of the original order once appellate routes have been exhausted.
- The magistrates were entitled to treat the foreign conviction as a valid qualifying conviction for SOPO purposes and to focus on continuing risk to the public.
- Excluding NP’s evidence was not an error of law invalidating the decision because the SOPO’s justification did not turn on proving abuse of NP; the evidence had limited probative value on the continuing-necessity question.
- On the evidence before them, including expert/police risk material and Sadler’s post-order conduct, the magistrates were entitled to conclude the SOPO remained necessary.

## Legal Principles

- SOPOs are preventive, risk-based measures aimed at protecting the public from serious sexual harm, not punishment for proved wrongdoing in a particular incident.
- A s.108 application to discharge or vary a SOPO is prospective and generally requires showing that current circumstances have changed so that the order is no longer necessary.
- Once the original SOPO has been affirmed on appeal, a discharge application cannot be used to relitigate the original merits; the question is necessity in light of present risk.
- Foreign convictions may qualify an individual for SOPO purposes where the statutory scheme treats them as qualifying convictions.
- Evidence denying misconduct in a specific episode may be excluded as marginal where the necessity of the order rests on broader risk indicators and assessments.

## Conclusion

The High Court affirmed that discharge of a SOPO depends on whether it remains necessary to prevent serious sexual harm in current circumstances, and it upheld the magistrates’ refusal to discharge where the order’s rationale was risk-based and the excluded witness evidence would not materially alter that assessment.


Sadler v. Worcestershire Magistrates’ Ct., [2014] EWHC 1715 (Q.B.D. Admin. Ct. 2014)