Page last updated at 16:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 November 2008

Judges lift web paedophile orders

Judges have lifted the restrictions on an internet paedophile's future
contact with children.

At Norwich Crown Court Michael Philip Lambert, 43, from Norfolk, had
admitted making indecent photos of children.

The court imposed a community supervision order, a sexual offences
prevention order (Sopo) and ordered him to attend a sex offenders
programme.

Mr Justice Simon and Judge Elgan Edwards quashed the Sopo in its
entirety at the Court of Appeal.

Home searched

Lambert, of Thorn Road, Fakenham, admitted he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

The Sopo order, imposed at the crown court in June, banned him from
being a member of any organisation involved in training or supervising
children, from using the internet or text messages to contact children
and from living with children without a parent or guardian.

The Appeal Court judges agreed there was little to suggest Lambert
posed a risk of direct assaults on children.

Mr Justice Simon told the court Lambert was caught after police
searched his home and found a computer on which were stored indecent
pictures and movies involving young boys between the ages of 11 and
13.

'Medium' risk

A probation officer's report rated the risk of harm to children as
"medium", and only likely if his circumstances changed such as
obtaining unsupervised access to children.

His lawyers argued that the Sopo could only have been appropriately
made if the court had been satisfied it was necessary to protect the
public from sexual harm.

Lambert's offending had been confined to downloading images and,
although there may have been some indirect harm caused to the children
in the photos, there was no suggestion he was at risk of directly
harming any child, the court heard.

Quashing the order, Mr Justice Simon said: "The sentencing judge
appears to have approached the order on the basis that a sexual
assault on a child, if it did occur, would be likely to be something
that would cause serious harm.

"We would agree, but there was little to suggest an assault was a
risk, other than the expressed predilection for boys."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7725297.stm

****

"Lambert's offending had been confined to downloading images and,
although there may have been some indirect harm caused to the children
in the photos, there was no suggestion he was at risk of directly
harming any child, the court heard."

"although there may have been some indirect harm caused to the
children in the photos"

WM
www.critest.com

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

Page last updated at 16:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 November 2008

Judges lift web paedophile orders

Judges have lifted the restrictions on an internet paedophile's future
contact with children.
[...]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7725297.stm

****

"Lambert's offending had been confined to downloading images and,
although there may have been some indirect harm caused to the children
in the photos, there was no suggestion he was at risk of directly
harming any child, the court heard."

"although there may have been some indirect harm caused to the
children in the photos"

They should never have given judges such Draconian powers to stop
people from doing legal things in the first place. They were bound to
be abused.

--
Dissenter

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:




Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:




Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

Because hes not a Ppaedophile

On Nov 13, 7:50*pm, "stircrazy" wrote:
"judith" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

Because hes not a Ppaedophile

.... or, more correctly, very unlikely to be.

WM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:50:43 -0000, "stircrazy"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:




Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

Because hes not a Ppaedophile


I thought he said that he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

ie he is a paedophile, knows it, and admits it.

On Nov 13, 10:06*pm, judith wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:50:43 -0000, "stircrazy"

wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

Because hes not a Ppaedophile

I thought he said that *he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

ie he is a paedophile, knows it, and admits it.

That is not the only criterion.

Even if it was, the AoA (Age of Attraction) also means that he is not
a paedophile.

He knows what he likes and he admits it ... so do you, it does not
make you a paedophile.

WM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:26:18 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

On Nov 13, 10:06*pm, judith wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:50:43 -0000, "stircrazy"

wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?

Because hes not a Ppaedophile

I thought he said that *he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

ie he is a paedophile, knows it, and admits it.

That is not the only criterion.

I think it is sufficient - an adult who is sexually attracted to
children is a paedophile.

He was sexually attracted to children - ergo he is a paedophile.

judith wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:50:43 -0000, "stircrazy"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:




Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?
Because hes not a Ppaedophile


I thought he said that he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

ie he is a paedophile, knows it, and admits it.


To who?

"The Tank" wrote in message
...
judith wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:50:43 -0000, "stircrazy"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:31:32 -0800 (PST), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:




Sorry to be a bit thick - can you explain why you put (not) in the
subject?
Because hes not a Ppaedophile


I thought he said that he had a sexual preference
for boys aged 11 to 13.

ie he is a paedophile, knows it, and admits it.


To who?


Probably to probation in pr-sentence reports