Posted By CW I don't think it is Health & Safety that is the problem here, its the judge. Wanting to give a dangerous sex offender community service.

Posted By Neil R p.s Sacking the judge would be a good start in solving that one.

Posted By Phil Rose It frustrates me when health and safety is used as an excuse for people not to do something - in most cases I have found that activities can be 'enabled' with a little thought. Aside from the various comments on the appropriateness or otherwise of the sentence, I am sure that this sentence could be 'enabled' Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Phil

Posted By Andy Petrie They have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which generally entails some level of extra cost and this is clearly the reason behind the decision. There is probably a good H&S reason why he can't do the work as it currently stands, but they need to prove that it would be unreasonable to accommodate him, and indeed any other deaf offenders in the future. As to whether this is a valid sentence, leave it to the judges, its starting to sound like a daily mail readers convention.

Posted By Jim Walker Whilst I tend to err towards the "string em up by the goolies" school of thought; you can't honestly be suggesting this particular individual should come up for extra punishment because of his disability. Can you??

Posted By Lilian McCartney Bit of a reverse from a situation in early 1990's when a disabled sex offender was given community service as prison would be to difficult for him with his disability. Someone without a disability would certainly have got a custodial sentence. He did his cs in a craft room, one to one, extra arrangements to have him arrive and leave before the folk going out for day arrived (for his safety due to nature of crime). Female staff in two's etc etc.

Posted By Lukasz Dont you think the better topic would be: "Deaf sex offender banned from community service because lack of health and safety" ?

Posted By Sen Sar Hi All I think we have to put aside the Sexual Assault aspect for a moment and think, does our system have any provisions for people in a similar situation whatever crime they have committed. Are we saying that petty theft, because we have no system requires a custodial sentence? I think the Judge used his powers to highlight an obvious failure in the system.

Posted By Neil R Well offence taken :-), as you have missed the point. Point 1- Why should a sex attacker only get community service? Why, for a crime so serious with a no doubt distraught innocent victim, should a lesser sentence community service even be considered. Point 2- The probation service will now have to spend money and time looking for a solution as to how they can put this person into community work safely? Bending over backwards so someone can enjoy a lesser, somewhat easier sentence. The amounts of money involved are irrespective, I would rather this person be banged up for a good length of time and pay fully for the act he committed. As opposed to money, time, training and extra work/ costs being put in to allow this person a lesser sentence. It doesn't add up why the hassle to allow him to get off lightly? The judge may well know law more than me, however I live in the real world, in real time and face real issues, I doubt the Judge knows the meaning of real world.

Posted By Barry Cooper I'm with Neil, except it should be 10 years rather than 5. If community serice is impractical, put him in prison

Posted By Barry Cooper They always use the H&S angle as an excuse. This is all to do with resources and money, as always Give H&S a break

Posted By IOSH Moderator This thread has meandered away from workplace H&S and is now locked Jane (Moderating Team)