In each case the youth aged 15 had been given a warning after admitting a sexual assault, and a decision had been made not to prosecute. On accepting the warnings, they had then been required to place their names on the sex offenders register, but this had not been explained to them when asked about accepting the warning.
Held: In one case, the acceptance of guilt was equivocal in any event. The placing of a name on the sex offender’s register added a public dimension to the consequences of accepting guilt, but without the putative offender having the opportunity of a trial. To have this happen without the consequences being explained, and by an administrative procedure was unfair.
Held: The warning procedure was not one requiring the consent of the youth (as opposed to a caution of an adult)
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Police
Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.178366