By Dan Whitten, Eleanor Neyroud & Peter Neyroud 

Research question - 

Sexual Risk Orders (SRO) have been advocated as a means to prevent Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). This is despite significant detriment to the fundamental rights of the legally innocent and a lack of empirical assessment that can speak to preventative efficacy. This study asks; do SROs serve to prevent sexual-harm?

Data - 

The Police National Computer (PNC) was used to identify two samples of SRO subjects. Legal Services’ data from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was used to construct a counterfactual group, for whom SRO was considered but not obtained. PNC was used to identify arrests as a proxy for offending and a harm index applied.

Methods - 

Before-after and between-group comparisons are used, along with an interrupted-time-series analysis, to assess the relationship between SRO and sexual-harm prevention. Rank-ordering of harm caused by alleged sexual-offenders in London enables an estimate of how precisely SROs are used against the highest-harm offenders.

Findings - 

SROs are associated with a significant 84.5% reduction in sexual-harm. This increases to a 93.1% reduction in the case of high-harm offenders, controlling for time incarcerated. Despite this, SROs are rarely used and are not systematically targeted against the most harmful offenders.

Conclusions - 

Within the limitations of the methodology we conclude that the evidence supports SRO use as a primary tactic to counter VAWG. Preventative impact may be maximised by increasing use, actively targeting SROs at the highest-harm offenders and considering use at an earlier stage of a subjects sexual-offending. A randomised trial is the next logical step to augment causal inference.

Camb J Evid Based Polic 9, 1 (2025, 19 p.