I've recently been convicted, and have been issued a SHPO pertaining to use of devices that connect to the internet. My probation officer has informed me that my MOSOVO officer, who I'll be meeting on monday, is going to say that I need to inform my employers, as I use a computer for work.
I've only been in this job for a few weeks, and was incredibly lucky to get it so quickly. I didn't need to disclose at the time of signing the contract because I hadn't been charged at that point. Obviously I'm concerned that disclosing may lead to dismissal, since I'm on my probation period, but the employer has software in place that monitors usage and blocks unwanted/NSFW sites. My question is, do MOSOVO officers have to follow a simple "conviction X means you automatically have to disclose" formula, or can I present the companies documents and contract, and offer them access to my work laptop whenever they need it, to persuade them that disclosure is not needed in my case - I can't do anything dodgy, and with the therapy and 12 step work I've been doing (which my probation officer can attest to), I've honestly not wanted to since my arrest. I'm hoping that if they can have the same access to the work laptop that they'd expect for all my other devices, they'd be satisfied.
Thanks.

i do not know the answer to your question unfortunately. However, one piece of advice - you should point out to the officers that stable employment is one of the risk factors in their evaluation models and if they take a course of action that results in unemployment they have essentially increased your risk score.  They may not listen and may have a checkbox procedure to follow, but i'd certainly try to get their support. Likewise with regard any of the firewall and monitoring software that your employer is running - get as much information beforehand to be able to demonstrate that it will have the same bottom line control as if they tell the employer in the first place.

Unless other factual advice is forthcoming on the forum, I would certainly get some legal advice from a solicitor as soon as possible so you know exactly where you stand and can [otentially head things off early - no good being legally right having lost a good job.

Your copper will go through a lengthy assessment on Monday and use that to assess your risk. You'll get a definitive answer then.

I'd be interested to know what they say to you in regards to disclosure as my copper is being less than helpful and inconsistency seems to be a theme here.

Couple of things to think about though:
Is it possible your employer/colleagues could find out what happened?
There's a moral sticking point - if you were your boss, is it fair not to know?


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

It's possible to get the SHPO changed, but I believe you have to go back to court. It all depends how the SHPO is worded, but they do tend not to be worded very well. The conditions are not supposed to be onerous though. Ideally you want exceptions for work purposes. Giving them access to the laptop is good, ideally you will have it with you when you meet them. The worry is will you be expected to use other computers at work. You need to look through each conditions and see if it going to be a problem, for example I have to use a VPN for work, so if you think you will ever need to use a VPN for work then you will want to ask if that condition can be removed for work purposes. If there is something about encryption software, you want to check that it just prevents you from installing it, rather than your work installing it (or indeed just coming as standard as it does on many devices). I would hope that they wouldn't inform your employer unless they thought your offending was relevant to your work, but I wouldn't know if they have a policy about that. 

my story is 6 yrs ago now but I went back and challenged the work piece of my non internet access - changed it to ok to use work intranet and work were never informed.  they still sacked me when it came out in the press, but hey ho got 9 months more salary out of them

" I didn't need to disclose at the time of signing the contract because I hadn't been charged at that point" I'm going to be brutally honest here having been through the mill myself and ask the question, how would you like to finish your employment? being sacked for gross misconduct or leaving on your own accord? because i had a new job in the period between being arrested and convicted and eventually i was sacked for gross misconduct as in their contract it states i must inform them of any current/past or impending criminal convictions.

The PPU might argue that they have no right of access to company computers since they are the companies property and not the property of the individual being monitored so they might say they cannot effectively manage your risk in that environment. If you are deemed 'low risk' you might be lucky, but if your offense was a downloading offense that almost always places you as a 'medium' risk due to the nature of the offense.

They could also say you can work there as long as they can have access to your computer to view internet history etc...not sure how the company you work for would appreciate two police officers turning up at your work place and asking questions, although i highly doubt they would want to be doing that, so I imagine they would avoid that situation.

You can bet your money that they will install their monitoring software on your home computer/laptop though, no way of wriggling out of that one unless the SHPO gets discharged. If your work computer is also your home computer then the same applies, they will insist that their monitoring software is installed. If your computer only stays at work then i don't think they can enforce it.

I hope you manage to keep your job but would strongly advise looking over the wording of your contract with a fine tooth comb, especially the parts about what constitutes misconduct/disciplinary/probationary period and gross misconduct.

They also might not just take your word for it that the companies in-house IT systems are secure and heavily restricted, granted most companies internet these days blocks out adult content and even social media and many only allow sites on their white list whilst everything else is black listed by default, the problem is how the officer approaches it, will they really take your word for it or will they contact your IT department and start mentioning that they are enquiring about the IT systems because they have an employee who is a registered sex offender and want to make sure they can't access any dodgy sites.

I think a lot depends on you as the individual and how they have assessed you, the PPU can make life bearable or they can turn your world upside down by making a few phone calls. If you have access to legal advice then take it.

Generally speaking with regards to self disclosure of an unspent conviction, you only have to disclose when asked

They will wan't to make sure that there are safeguards in place to prohibit you from accessing dangerous content. If I was your PPO I would be concerned that you have a laptop and not a desktop in a open office. If it was the latter I would assume that no checks would be required. 

Have your meeting - it may be the case that they just want to see your laptop to make sure it has protection to stop you viewing un-desirable content. If they want to speak to your employer, don't assume the worst - they will go through HR who have a legal responsibility to not disclose. One of my previous employers had a request from the police and it simply stated something along the lines "Mr. X has previously been convicted of a non-recent offence. As such I am required to understand what protection is associated with your IT systems. Do you monitor users actions?".

Have your meeting and make sure you know exactly what they will ask your employer (if they are going to make a request). 

I know of instances where SHPOs are altered to allow work use. So it can happen. Perhaps he can download the IT policy, which hopefully mentions what measures they take for security and monitoring. Also the argument is he doesn't want to lose his job, as such there is good motivation not to violate the rules. If the police do need to speak to your employers, it may be possible that they are discreet, and do not have to mention who the employee is. It's worth asking them if that is possible. People in work are less likely to offend, I doubt they want the hassle of the community around you knowing - as that can cause more problems for them, also SHPOs are not supposed be onerous - so there is good argument. At the end of the day you are at the mercy of the police. In my partners case they never installed any monitoring software, and even after more than a year they have never asked to look at any devices - so I guess it depends on what risk level you are, or even just what their workload is like. 

Thanks everyone for your advice, greatly appreciated! I've had the meeting now, and it went pretty well. There will be a further meeting to go over my home PC and meet my wife, but in the meantime my officer will check with her Inspector about what will need doing. I showed them the work laptop, which I'm able to bring home with me, so I can make available to them any time they want to see it, and I've proved that there is restriction software in place. I'll go over the contract more thoroughly, and if it comes to disclosing I'll check with them whether they can do it without revealing who they're asking about. My SHPO does state that the "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work", so hopefully that combined with my cooperation and (hopefully) their positive opinion of me will make me a low enough risk to not need to disclose. 

I'm glad your meeting went well. I'm also glad to hear your wife has stood by you.

Now this is interesting. I googled "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work" and only 2018 results came up. I wonder if this is a new line that is put in to help people get back to work. I'm finding this issue a HUGE barrier. My order does not say either way whether it affects work or not but my draconian copper has just decided it does.

Anyone have any info on that line?


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.