This Precedent is a checklist for an employer to use setting out some of the steps that it may need to take to prevent sexual harassment of its staff, to comply with the duty to prevent sexual harassment set out in section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It is part of a toolkit comprising: • Precedent: Sexual harassment risk assessment, a template sexual harassment risk assessment that can be used by an employer to document the sexual harassment risks it identifies within the workplace • Precedent: Sexual harassment action plan and monitoring log, a template action plan and monitoring log for an employer to use when taking steps to prevent sexual harassment Changing the work environment Purpose Step Checked (tick) Comments To promote a culture of zero tolerance and let staff know the organisation takes sexual harassment seriously Have you made sure staff are aware of relevant policies, eg Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), Bullying and harassment, Social media, Staff relationships? Have you a structure in place for a manager/HR to remind managers (eg at regular management meetings) that the organisation has a zero-tolerance

This Precedent is a template sexual harassment risk assessment that can be used by an employer to document the sexual harassment risks it identifies within the workplace, and the measures that it will take to mitigate the risk of sexual harassment, as part of its overall approach to complying with the duty to prevent sexual harassment set out in section 40A

Section 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) provides for sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs) to be made by the court where it deals with a defendant following conviction for specific types of offences. The provisions of sections 103A–103K of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) govern the making of SHPOs otherwise than in connection with a conviction, ie where: • a court finds a person not guilty of a specified sexual or violent offence by reason of insanity • a court finds that the defendant is under a disability and has done the act charged against the defendant in respect of such an offence, or • on the application of the police in respect of a qualifying offender who poses a risk to the public This Practice Note is concerned primarily with the making of SHPOs as part of the sentencing process following conviction. For information on sexual risk orders (SROs) which are not part of the sentencing process but may be sought by way of complaint to a magistrates’ court against

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not being maintained. Repeal and transitional provisions Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) have now been replaced by (a) sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs) and (b) sexual risk orders (SROs). This is as a result of sections 104 to 129 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) having been repealed by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014). See Practice Notes: Sexual harm prevention orders and Sexual risk orders. Practitioners should note the effect of the saving and transitional provisions: the repeal or amendment of SOA 2003, ss 104 to 129 (by ABCPA 2014 ) does not apply in relation to: • an application for a SOPO made before 8 March 2015 • an existing order (whether made before or after 8 March 2015) which had been applied for before 8 March 2015, or • anything done in connection with such an application or order Since 8 March 2015 (when ABCPA 2014, s 114 came into force), there can be no variation of an existing

This Practice Note considers the definition of the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for the purposes of protection from discrimination and other prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), ie sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex, persons of the opposite sex, or persons of the same or opposite sex. It considers the guidance from case law, covering matters such as whether actual and/or perceived sexual orientation is protected and that while the definition of sexual orientation does not, by its terms, include sexual practices or sexual conduct, there will often be a correlation between certain types of conduct and particular sexual orientation and this may be protected. For a guide to all our materials relating to protections and liabilities arising out of acts and omissions that amount to sexual orientation discrimination or other forms of prohibited conduct that are connected to sexual orientation, which signposts fully detailed materials found in other Practice Notes that deal with each aspect of the subject matter in full depth, see Practice Note: Sexual orientation discrimination. Protected characteristics EqA

The concept that it is unlawful for an individual to discriminate against another on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

This Practice Note summarises the materials available relating to protections and liabilities arising out of acts and omissions that amount to sexual orientation discrimination or other forms of prohibited conduct that are connected to sexual orientation. The level of detail provided in this Practice Note is low, as its primary purpose is to guide subscribers onwards to the fully detailed materials found in further Practice Notes that deal with each aspect of the subject matter in depth. As such, this Practice Note should be regarded as a starting point to research, as full information will only be found elsewhere in the locations linked to below. The characteristics protected The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) provides protection against discrimination and other prohibited conduct which relates to certain listed characteristics which people may possess. Some protections relate specifically to only one of those characteristics. Others provide the same protection in relation to all the characteristics, which are collectively referred to as ‘the protected characteristics’. ‘Sexual orientation’ is one of these protected characteristics, the others being: • age • disability

Sections 122A–122K of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) set out the provisions for sexual risk orders (SROs). An SRO is a civil order which aims to protect the general public in the UK, or children or vulnerable adults overseas, from individuals who pose a risk of harm. SROs enable the courts to impose any restrictions which are deemed necessary to prevent such individuals from causing harm. Note that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) includes amendments to the relevant part of the SOA 2003. At the time of writing, some of these amendments are not yet in force, they are addressed below where relevant. The main difference between an SRO and a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) is that an SRO can be imposed on a person who has not been convicted of or cautioned for an offence listed in SOA 2003, Schs 3 or 5. For information on sexual harm prevention orders, see Practice Note: Sexual harm prevention orders. Key features What are SROs? An SRO is a civil

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in the Seychelles and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. The Seychelles is a member of the Southern African Development Community and COMESA, which operates a supra-national merger control regime. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Seychelles merger control regime and are any updates or developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Seychelles? The relevant legislation in Seychelles is the Fair Trading Act 2022 (FTA 2022), which came into force on 1 August 2022, repealing the Consumer Protection Act 2010 (CPA 2010), the Fair Competition Act 2009 (FCA 2009) and the Fair Trading Commission Act 2009. The Fair Trading Commission (FTC) is the main statutory body whose function is to prevent and/or control anti-competitive mergers. A key innovation introduced by the FTA 2022 is the creation of the Fair Trading Tribunal, an independent body that will operate free from the direction or control of any person or authority. The Tribunal will comprise a Chairperson and seven additional members. The

Law360, London: Prime Minister Keir Starmer named former barrister Shabana Mahmood as the Labour government's new justice secretary on 5 July 2024 following a sweeping victory in the UK general election.

Private Client analysis: The art market depends heavily on specialist expertise and scholarly opinion. It is easy to see the potential for disputes to arise. However, this very case is a real rarity in itself: an art attribution dispute at trial before an English judge to define further the legal parameters within which art experts should operate. Here, the claimant seller sued the defendant art dealer for negligence after the dealer had sold, as agent for the seller, the seller's 18th-century oil painting for significantly less than the re-sale price achieved just a few months later when the picture was being "flipped". A key point of contention during the hearing was the decision by the art dealer not to seek a second opinion from the scholar widely considered to be the world-leading authority on the artist. The judge ruled that the art dealer did not act negligently and that the ultimate (nominal) re-sale price of US$10.5m was not sufficient in and by itself to demonstrate that the art dealer had been negligent in concluding that £1.15m was an appropriate price at which to sell the picture on behalf of the seller. As a result, the seller's claim for damages against the dealer failed. Written by Till Vere-Hodge, partner, Payne Hicks Beach LLP.

Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson KC and Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Alex Burghart MP have warned the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may have acted ultra vires by laying a draft remedial order to repeal immunity provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 while an appeal remains live before the UK Supreme Court.