Man Found Not-Guilty of Rape Charges by Two Juries Still Required to Report All New Sex Partners to Police
British 23-year-old Nicholas Crawshaw is subject to a civil "Sex Risk Order" after cops weren't content to let his trials-by-jury stand.


A British man has been banned from entering bars after 9 p.m. and must alert police every time he intends to have sexual contact with someone new after being found innocent of sexual assault and rape charges in two jury trials.
Think you must have read the above sentence wrong? Probably not. Despite being deemed innocent by his peers—twice—Nicholas Crawshaw, 23, is now subject to a civil "Sex Risk Order" after local cops weren't content to let the trials-by-jury stand.
Initially, Crawshaw stood accused of sexually assaulting eight women between 2010 and 2015. In March 2016, a jury found him not guilty of several of the counts but couldn't decide on others, spawning a retrial. In that trial, which concluded October 18, Crawshaw was found not guilty of the remaining eight offenses. After spending 16 months in prison—and being cleared of all six counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, and two counts of assault by penetration that had been facing him—Crawshaw was allowed to go free.
Following the second trial, local prosecutor Alison Mutch said, "We respect the decision of the jury." But that respect was apparently short-lived. On October 21, just three days after Crawshaw was cleared of all charges against him, Cheshire Police initiated civil proceedings to impose an interim "Sex Risk Order" on Crawshaw.
Speaking for Cheshire Police, Elizabeth Heavy told the court that Crawshaw was a "sexual predator" who had "admitted sexual contact" with several of the women who had accused him. Crawshaw "admitted in the course of criminal proceedings that he had sex with one complainant in a toilet in a nightclub," Heavy pointed out, and he said he met "many" complainants in nightclubs or bars. "It is for [these] reasons that the application has been drafted," she said.
It's true that Crawshaw admitted to sexual contact with some of his accusers. It's also, on its own, irrelevant to whether he's a "sexual predator." The sexual contact Crawshaw admitted to was, he claims, consensual. The accusers claimed it was not. The jury found Crawshaw more credible.
But West Cheshire magistrates agreed, at least temporarily, with the local cops' logic in this case. On Monday, they issued a temporary Sex Risk Order against Crawshaw which prohibits him from going into places that serve alcohol after 9 p.m. and requires him to inform local police beforehand every time he intends to have "sexual contact" with someone new. In November, magistrates will hold a full hearing to determine how long the order will stay in place.
According to Sky News, more than 50 Sex Risk Orders have been issued by British authorities, although only one prior order requires its subject to notify the government of every new sex partner. That order, issued in 2015 against John O'Neill, was subsequently deemed "unpoliceable" by a York Magistrates' Court. However, the only adjustment York magistrates made to O'Neill's order was that he needn't inform cops 24 hours before starting a new sexual relationship but merely "as soon as is reasonably practicable."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's a rather specific fetish.
Rule 34 and all that.
I guess, thank the FFs for the 5th amendment.
Yeah, this could totally never happen here.
What's left of it, anyway.
I think all we can really be thankful for is that so many Supreme Court precedents were set before revisionists started fucking us all over. The perpetual march of time brings us all so many technologies that they can now render exempt from said precedents.
Despite all the shit that everything's gone to and the current sad state (and the evidence suggests it will be getting worse in short order), the judicial branch is the only real friend libertarians have got left. Hillary's already made moves to assist campaigns in handing the entire legislative branch to her along with the executive. She fully intends to take that small refuge (weak support that it has offered) from us fully. Then, when the Dems have played the RNC as a puppet in the primaries yet again, she can have her eight years of empire without so much as a squeak of criticism from the media that wrought her crown.
The Brits freed themselves from the EU. Now who's going to free them from themselves?
The Queen! I won't pretend for a minute that the charlatans and fools that govern from parliament would be more circumspect and competent than the royals.
They haven't freed themselves. In fact, their Remain establishment is now running with the idea that only a vote in Parliament will suffice, and if the parliament votes "Remain" fuck plebs.
Lighten up, Elizabeth.
I bet she was grinning slyly when she said that.
She ain't Heavy, she's my constable.
In 10 years all sexual encounters will be recorded automatically and he submitted to the State for review.
Predicting an episode of next season's Black Mirror?
What's that, Black Adder 5?
At the current rate, we're about 2 years away from that. Every time you have sex with your partner you'l have to file a report and appear before the Ministry of Fornication:
Minister: Did you have sexual relations with this person on [date/time]?
Fornicators: Yes.
Minister: Did you consent, did she consent?
Fornicators: Yes.
Minister: Are you sure?
Fornicators: Yes.
Minister: Ok, you're free to go until next time. Pay your $200 administration fee before leaving. That's each.
So we have now all become johns and prostitutes, and the state is the pimp?
What the hell did this guy really do? Piss in Theresa May's breakfast cereal?
Given the chance, who wouldn't?
You have a good point.
Hey cops, check it out, I'm about to have threesome with Angelina Jolie and my wife Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I read that as Morgan Freeman.
Would.
You'd think he'd be able to sue or at least file some sort of motion with a court to get some kind of injunction or something.
Or that the state would have a hard time enforcing this order were he to run afoul of it. Upholding the order resulting from crimes for which he was acquitted, would be refreshing admission that the "rule of law" is purely symbolic.
He has a man bun... GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!
GUILTY!
He said: "I have always respected women 100%
You know who else said they've always respected women?
THE GREAT TRUMPET! LORD OF THE PATRIARCHY!
Erasure?
Slick Willy!
It's true that Crawshaw admitted to sexual contact with some of his accusers.
Robby? That you in the ENB costume?
Check the toilet bowl for evidence of... fruit sushi.
It puts the lotion on the hair, or it gets the fruit sushi again!
finish-the-alt-text: reached in the locker...
I expect to see this over here once the War on Sex Trafficking really ramps up.
Closest thing I can think of was the 1999 case of the judge that banned one individual from posting on an internet forum. Does that a precedent make? Dunno.
http://community.seattletimes......ug=2995869
The Hillary admin will put those mere amateurs to shame. She'll truly save the poor wiminz and childins!
and requires him to inform local police beforehand every time he intends to have "sexual contact" with someone new
Any healthy man "intends to have sexual contact with someone new" about every five seconds.
When it stretches to 5, I'll let you know.
This dude had 8 separate women file charges?
WTF
Sounds like this risk order is for his own good...
"as soon as is reasonably practicable" when he starts a new sexual relationship."
What's the purpose of that notification? Will his partner be informed? Will surveillance be put in place? Or is this supposed to intimidate?
Well, it could be designed to make him have sex with police officers only.
1. "and requires him to inform local police beforehand every time he intends to have "sexual contact" with someone new."
He should send a note to the local police stating his intention "to attempt sexual contact with the following list....," then attach the phone book.
2. "Speaking for Cheshire Police, Elizabeth Heavy told the court that Crawshaw was a "sexual predator" who had "admitted sexual contact" with several of the women who had accused him."
Do a quick googling for the guy's photo. He is fairly good looking, in that roguish, bad boy way that tends to result in quick conquests, likely some of whom were later disappointed that he did not pay any more attention to them. I suspect that the jury had more than just reasonable doubt as to his criminality. Moralizing scolds - Elizabeth? - would nevertheless consider him a sexual predator due to his taking advantage of his unfair mesmerism.
Wait, isn't #1 an explicit commitment?
He should send notification starting with the Chief Constable's wife and daughters and start working his way down the chain of command.
I'm sorry, but the alt-text really bothers me. Everyone knows that in England, the number is 999!
There are two appropriate responses to this.
1) submit the name of the prosecutors mother.
2) submit the names of every woman in town. And all men as well, in case he gets curious.
That'd violate the prosecutor's right to privacy. This new tool is fairly strange.
*prosecutor's [mother's]
Is that victim blaming? Retaliation? Sexual harassment?
He's not the first
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng.....e-36794430
http://www.theweek.co.uk/75736.....w-homeless