https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/novlett-robyn-williams-met-police-case-dropped-sex-offender-register-b1154775.htmlSome interesting developments in this case. A person convicted of an image offence repeatedly breaks the SOR rules and gets away with it.
"The court heard that she had admitted failing to comply with the requirements, but denied the charges on the basis she had a “reasonable excuse”. It was on the basis she did not intentionally withhold information, forgot or did not appreciate the need to make a notification, the court was told."
This might be understandable, apart from the fact that she is a serving police officer! No one else gets to use these things as an excuse. I would say she should be more aware of the rules than an average member of the public. The other odd thing about it, is the reason that the prosecution dropped the case, which was mental health.
"Judge Richard Marks KC said the mental health report made “sad and unhappy reading”. He said he could “well imagine her being completely traumatised by the conviction”, adding: “Nobody could describe her as being a sex offender in the true meaning of that expression. ”The judge declined to formally acquit Ms Williams, saying the proper course was for the charges to lie on the court file. But added: “As far as I am concerned, she leaves the court with no stain on her character.”
Everybody convicted of image offences is 'completely traumatised by the conviction'. There are no exceptions. The effect on our mental health is devastating, long lasting and probably irreversible. But that does not prevent the justice system throwing the full weight of the law at us.
"the prosecution has concluded that in light of the mental health report, in particular its assessment of the effect these ongoing proceedings are having on the current health of Ms Williams, it is no longer in the public interest to pursue the prosecution.”
Try telling that to Caroline Flack. This police officer obviously had a very good psychiatrist, but the CPS don't just drop charges because it upsets the person being charged. If they did, we could all use the mental health defence to avoid prosecution.
The circumstances of the case are unusual, but I would argue that the real injustice here, are the double standards applied to a convicted SO. If the judge thinks her original conviction was unjust and that she is not a 'real' SO, then why not criticise the crazy possession laws that led to her being put on the SOR in the first place? If the possession laws were not so strict and inflexible, she would never have been convicted. I would also have liked the judge to have defined what they meant by "a sex offender in the true meaning of that expression".
As to the notification rules, the judge could have criticised those too, but I find it hard to believe that someone on the SOR can go on holiday to Kenya and 'forget' to mention it to her PPU. More likely, she thought the SOR rules did not apply to her and that she could just ignore them.
But something to remember and to quote, if you are ever accused of a breach. Just say you that did not appreciate the need to make a notification and then call your psychiatrist.