Welcome to the Unlock forum. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


ROA .....Not applicable to Sex Offences?


ROA .....Not applicable to Sex Offences?

Author
Message
Hola
Hola
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)Supreme Being (2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 34, Visits: 648
Square - 23 Sep 18 8:21 AM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:55 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:48 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:39 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?

I'm sure we'd all hope it would be some form of risk assessment. From the cop's point of view, though, that might be an assessment of the potential risk to their career if they don't apply for an order....

Well what I'm hoping is I'd be given a chance to reverse whatever my circumstances are that brought it about. 

E.g. If I become chums with a child, I'd rather get a chance to postpone that friendship myself, and return to square one, rather than get one of those "stay away from kids" orders because some stranger cop thinks I'm getting too close.


I don't really understand what motivation you would have to become 'chums with a child'. To be frank, if I was aware of your situation and was aware of this I would be running to the court to get a SOPO.

SOPO's are all about risk, or the perception of risk. There are many people who have been on the SOR and not had a SOPO applied because there is very little risk. To ensure an SOPO is not required you must prove that you do not pose, or appear to pose a risk. If your conviction is against children - minimise your contact, go on vacation when kids are in school, make every effort to avoid 'accidental encounters' with kids. It really is all in your hands. 

I agree with Harmless - why on earth would you want to get into that situation ?  If I found out and knew your history I would dobb you in as a risk too

Square
Square
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74, Visits: 249
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:55 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:48 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:39 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?

I'm sure we'd all hope it would be some form of risk assessment. From the cop's point of view, though, that might be an assessment of the potential risk to their career if they don't apply for an order....

Well what I'm hoping is I'd be given a chance to reverse whatever my circumstances are that brought it about. 

E.g. If I become chums with a child, I'd rather get a chance to postpone that friendship myself, and return to square one, rather than get one of those "stay away from kids" orders because some stranger cop thinks I'm getting too close.


I don't really understand what motivation you would have to become 'chums with a child'. To be frank, if I was aware of your situation and was aware of this I would be running to the court to get a SOPO.

SOPO's are all about risk, or the perception of risk. There are many people who have been on the SOR and not had a SOPO applied because there is very little risk. To ensure an SOPO is not required you must prove that you do not pose, or appear to pose a risk. If your conviction is against children - minimise your contact, go on vacation when kids are in school, make every effort to avoid 'accidental encounters' with kids. It really is all in your hands. 
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 245, Visits: 1.2K
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:55 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:48 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:39 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?

I'm sure we'd all hope it would be some form of risk assessment. From the cop's point of view, though, that might be an assessment of the potential risk to their career if they don't apply for an order....

Well what I'm hoping is I'd be given a chance to reverse whatever my circumstances are that brought it about. 

E.g. If I become chums with a child, I'd rather get a chance to postpone that friendship myself, and return to square one, rather than have one of those "stay away from kids" orders.


If anything, they would probably be more likely to ask if you had disclosed to the parent than go to court to get an order. As they have the power to disclose on your behalf if you don't want to do it, they don't need to get a court order. It's much cheaper as well.
Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 52, Visits: 150
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:48 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:39 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?

I'm sure we'd all hope it would be some form of risk assessment. From the cop's point of view, though, that might be an assessment of the potential risk to their career if they don't apply for an order....

Well what I'm hoping is I'd be given a chance to reverse whatever my circumstances are that brought it about. 

E.g. If I become chums with a child, I'd rather get a chance to postpone that friendship myself, and return to square one, rather than get one of those "stay away from kids" orders because some stranger cop thinks I'm getting too close.


Edited
Last Month by Harmless
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 245, Visits: 1.2K
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 1:39 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?

I'm sure we'd all hope it would be some form of risk assessment. From the cop's point of view, though, that might be an assessment of the potential risk to their career if they don't apply for an order....
Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 52, Visits: 150
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 1:10 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.

What kind of thing would prompt a cop to apply for one?
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 245, Visits: 1.2K
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:51 PM
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.

I agree that not all RSOs have SOPOs/SHPOs/SROs, but they can if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... if the police apply for one. In fact, if the police apply for one, I'd be amazed if they didn't get one.... I'd guess the main deciding factor would be if someone was cautioned rather than convicted, as they would have to make a point of taking it to court afterwards, whereas if someone is convicted, they're already in court, which might be seen as too good an opportunity to miss.
Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 52, Visits: 150
AB2014 - 18 Sep 18 12:50 PM
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.

Yes but I'm responding to the idea above, that all RSOs also have SOPOs.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 245, Visits: 1.2K
Harmless - 18 Sep 18 12:46 PM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



If you were convicted of a relevant offence, you should have been put on the SOR automatically. That wouldn't affect when your conviction becomes spent, as only a SOPO/SHPO would do that.
Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)Supreme Being (325 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 52, Visits: 150
BenS - 10 Sep 18 10:02 AM
Yankee - 10 Sep 18 8:23 AM
BenS - 10 Sep 18 8:12 AM
Monkos - 9 Sep 18 9:28 PM

From what I read, the SOR registration on its own shouldn't cause a spent conviction to remain unspent, while the SOPO/SHAPO does.

While I agree with this, I have been told by my PPU that for as long as you have a SOPO/SHPO, you are on the SOR. I can't confirm this though.

E.g. if you have 5 on the SOR but an indefinite order, you will remain on the SOR until your order is removed. Anyone else know about this?

BTW the debate about whether an active order makes for an unspent conviction, there is absolutely no doubt that it does and this is clearly laid down in law. See the table in section 5(2) of the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

"Sentence: A relevant order
End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders: The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect."

So if you got a 1-year sentence with a 10-year SOR period, then although your 1-year sentence would be spent after 4 years, your conviction is kept unspent by virtue of the SOR period until the end of those 10 years.

There is a difference in the legislation between an Order and Notification.

If you have an Order (e.g. SOPO) then, as above, your conviction is not spent until the Order expires.

However, if you are on the SOR because you were convicted of a sexual offence but there was no Order as part of the disposal, the length of time you have to notify is irrelevant when it comes to determining when the conviction is spent i.e. normal ROA rules apply.

There are a lot of people out there who have a spent conviction but have a futher period (which might be quite considerable) on the SOR.  The notification itself will not appear on a basic DBS disclosure.




Is there really anyone in recent years who has been convicted of a sex offence but not subject to an order? It seems they are virtually glued to each other. Anyone convicted of a sex offence will surely get a SOPO/SHPO at the very least putting restrictions on contact with children or on looking at pornography?

I was convicted in 2016 and although I had 9 months of license conditions (which has the same overall effect as an order), I never got an order in addition to that. 



GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.


Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search