[2025] EWCA Crim 1320

"Sexual harm prevention orders: requirements included in order etc.

A sexual harm prevention order that imposes a requirement to do something on an offender must specify a person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement.

The person may be an individual or an organisation.

(2)Before including such a requirement in a sexual harm prevention order, the court must receive evidence about its suitability and enforceability from—

(a)the individual to be specified under subsection (1), if an individual is to be specified;

(b)an individual representing the organisation to be specified under subsection (1), if an organisation is to be specified."

Paragraph 6 is drafted in negative terms as if it imposes a prohibition upon refusing to engage or take part in polygraph testing. That is, however, a matter of drafting and the reality is that the paragraph imposes a requirement that the appellant must engage with and take part in polygraph testing as directed. Accordingly, we consider that the requirement was subject to section 347A.

Here, the prosecution simply uploaded a draft order to the Digital Case System. There was no evidence put before the court from a police officer that complied with section 347A(2) and accordingly the judge should have refused to include the polygraph requirement in this SHPO. Further and in any event, we do not consider that a requirement that allowed any police officer responsible for the appellant's management to require him to undertake a polygraph on any subject whatever and without any limit of time could possibly be necessary. The requirement is also vague, in that it purports to apply long after the appellant might have a police officer responsible for his management. In our judgment, the very breadth of the requirement was both oppressive and disproportionate.