"... satisfied that the defendant has... done an act of a sexual nature as a result of which it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of— (a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant..."
"1. Having any contact or communication of any kind with any child under the age of 16 other than: i. such as [is] inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of his daily life or ii. with the consent of the child's parent or guardian, who has knowledge of the Order and with the express approval of social services in that area."
"(5) having any unsupervised contact of any kind with any female under the age of 16, other than (i) such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the context of lawful daily life, or (ii) with the consent of the child's parent or guardian, who has knowledge of his convictions."
"You were interviewed about it and you did not accept... you do not even accept now that that order [Sexual Risk Order] affected you but it did. I have to now work out the appropriate sentence for your offending. You are of good character and you have a diagnosis of an emotionally unstable personality disorder. At the end of the trial I indicated that I wanted an All Options Report on you because I had concluded that you were, firstly, intelligent but you were narcissistic and manipulative. Now, they may well be traits of your personality disorder but you have not been diagnosed as having a narcissistic disorder. In my judgment, Mr Mayne, there is no doubt that the harm you caused [Laura] and her family places this into harm Category 1 were I to be using the guideline for the breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. I have heard cogent argument from counsel today about the applicability of that guideline and in my judgment it is the most useful guideline that there is. I also have to assess your culpability. I repeat, I am not sentencing you as a sex offender but I am sentencing you as somebody who made a deliberate choice to ignore an order and not to communicate for a considerable period of time. In my judgment your offending fell just within culpability A, Category harm 1. The range, therefore, is between two years and four and a half years' custody. The starting point is one of three years. In my assessment your offending falls at about that level. Mitigation: the only mitigation is what is included in the psychiatric report which I have read about you which is your distressing childhood experiences. I do not play those down in any way shape or form and the fact that you have been treated for a series of mental health difficulties over [a] period of time. What I have to do in your case, as I do in any case involving a mental disorder, is to assess for myself the impact [of] your mental disorder on your offending and in my judgment that is low. Your emotionally unstable personality disorder did not contribute to your offending and in my judgment adds very little mitigation. You have over the years been medicated by a series of anxiolytic drugs but of course they will not have affected by one jot your personality disorder because such is not amenable, as you now know, to medical treatment. What I have to do, therefore, is using the guidelines as much as I can I have to apply three principles. The first is to decide whether the custody threshold has been passed. Yes, it has. Secondly, I have to decide using the guidelines and my own judgment and knowledge of your case what is the least sentence of imprisonment I can impose. That in my judgment is one of two years' and ten months' imprisonment. The third question which is [whether] that be suspended does not arise because the sentence I have arrived at is too long for any suspension. The sentence, therefore, for this breach is one of two years' and ten months' imprisonment."