A psychopathic sex fiend who objected to wearing a GPS tag has failed to convince top judges that the device violated his human rights.
‘Manipulative’ Paul Richards, 48, from Middlesbrough, has a terrifying list of 12 sex convictions going back more than 30 years.
He has also served time for kidnapping, dishonesty, harassment and drugs possession.
He has been diagnosed with an anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder and ‘severe psycopathy’, London’s Appeal Court heard.
Cleveland Police decided that forcing him to wear a tag whenever he leaves his home was the only way of protecting women, particularly prostitutes.
Richards, now in custody for breaching a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO), argued the tag breached his fundamental right to privacy.
But his campaign hit the buffers today when Lord Justice Beatson ruled that forcing him to wear a tag was ‘in accordance with the law’ and justified.
The judge, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, and Lord Justice Fulford, said Richards posed a ‘high risk of sexual recidivism’.
“The medical evidence also indicated that he manifests high levels of deceit and manipulation and shows minimal empathy or remorse for his offending’.
The court heard Richards has been subject to close police monitoring since his first sex conviction in 1983.
His list of crimes includes convictions for failing to comply with sex offender register notification requirements.
And he is subject to restraining orders to protect three specific women who had suffered harassment or violence at his hands.
Police said there was only so much they could do to keep tabs on him and a tag was needed to ensure that he does not stray into ‘red light’ districts.
Richards was arrested in September 2012 - just a month after Teesside Magistrates ordered him to wear a tag - after he was detected in an area frequented by prostitutes.
He was jailed for three breaches of his SOPO in November 2013 and remains in custody.
His barrister, Hugh Southey QC, argued that the magistrates simply had now power to order him to wear a tag.
The device also breached his right to respect for privacy and personal autonomy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, he argued.
He objected to police obtaining data about his ‘lawful activities’ about which they had no right to know.
But Lord Justice Beatson pointed out that Richards had at first volunteered to wear a tag, before changing his mind.
He said he was ‘concerned he could not control himself’ and that a tag would ‘help him set boundaries’ and keep him away from red light districts.
Although the magistrates had no specific statutory power to make him wear a tag, the judge ruled the requirement was ‘in accordance with the law’.
His tagging would be kept under regular review and was ‘proportionate’ to the extreme risk to women he posed, the judge concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment