|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services. 20 Feb 2019 : Re: Children Services visit: my recent Polygraph Interview, I told them that I had a family friend with two girls and a boy and a recently born child, aged 16, 14, 10. They Informed the PPU and a PPU officer came to see me taking details of the children. The following day I had a phone call from the PPU Officer that at some point children services will be visiting at my friend’s house. Yet they only took the address of my friends house but not the door number. I told my friend about the Children Services Visit. My friend is nervous about it and is not happy that the Children Services knocking at his door. I would appreciate if you could indicate what kind of action the Children Services will be taking? Can I tell the PPU that I cannot give my friends address without his permission? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services. 20 Feb 2019 : Re: Children Services visit: my recent Polygraph Interview, I told them that I had a family friend with two girls and a boy and a recently born child, aged 16, 14, 10. They Informed the PPU and a PPU officer came to see me taking details of the children. The following day I had a phone call from the PPU Officer that at some point children services will be visiting at my friend’s house. Yet they only took the address of my friends house but not the door number. I told my friend about the Children Services Visit. My friend is nervous about it and is not happy that the Children Services knocking at his door. I would appreciate if you could indicate what kind of action the Children Services will be taking? Can I tell the PPU that I cannot give my friends address without his permission? Thanks Hi First in regard to not giving their address you may have a condition that says you have to assist / provide all information required by the Chief Constable or something like that so you would be breaking your conditions. You local area may even say it is part of their SO handling processes. Secondly, Not knowing fully your relationship with your PPU it could cause you more issues. Even if you say you are no longer associating with them, at this stage they may still wish to inform Social Services just in case. In ways I would tell your friends the facts and say you will probably be forced to tell the PPU, it is then up to them how they handle it, and finally ask if they still wish to be associated with you. My experience is similar to yours in that it was an ex-girlfriends cousin who had a son (9). When I first notified my PPU of the relationship and the cousins family having a child nothing was done. When I relocated and no longer in the mentioned relationship, my new PPU asked about the previous relationship and family. They contacted the social services of my previous area. Social Services "hassled" - I say this word as at one point the mother was in hospital receiving treatment and they kept phoning her to arrange a meeting. I say kept, because she kept telling them to stop calling her because of the treatment but more importantly, she had no concerns over me as she and her husband were aware of my offence. In the end they visited the home, talked to the parents and the boy (separately), then visited his school and doctor. The mother and father both voiced their concern about these meetings as it caused great confusion with the boy. Nearly 10 months later I asked my PPU for any conclusions from Social services; he hadn't even chased them and his reply words were: "I didn't expect any concerns to be raised". I asked why instigate the visit then and received no answer. I am afraid I now manage my circle of friends by understanding if they have children. The PPU mention I am limiting my support network and my reply is always - "How long do you think the friendship would last once Social Services become involved?". In regard to family I do not directly associate with those that have children. I am dreading it when / if my children have children of their own and I have told my PPU I will "alienate" myself from them if / when they do if I think Social Services will become involved. All this and my offence was paying for sex with a female sex worker and it was recognised she lied about her true age to all her clients. I hope you fair well.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services. 20 Feb 2019 : Re: Children Services visit: my recent Polygraph Interview Dear Newbee I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found very valuable, the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they returned), and he answered satisfactorily all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would no longer be contacting them.
Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited me to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it, though the PPU has been sent a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent accurate. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded that I had lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
d of action the Children Services will be taking? Can I tell the PPU that I cannot give my friends address without his permission? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services. 20 Feb 2019 : Re: Children Services visit: my recent Polygraph Interview Dear Newbee I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found very valuable, the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they returned), and he answered satisfactorily all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would no longer be contacting them.
Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited me to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it, though the PPU has been sent a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent accurate. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded that I had lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
d of action the Children Services will be taking? Can I tell the PPU that I cannot give my friends address without his permission? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves. I'm having difficulty in posting the following, so I will try again. Dear Suprembeing. I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they came), and he answered satisfactorily to all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would o longer be contacting them. Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent correct. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded as that I had I lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves. I'm having difficulty in posting the following, so I will try again. Dear Suprembeing. I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they came), and he answered satisfactorily to all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would o longer be contacting them. Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent correct. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded as that I had I lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
Hi I wasn't sure if you was asking AB2014 for further advice but I thought I'd reply on my info. I am pleased the SS outcome was as you hoped and I hope your friend and his family remain that, supportive friends. A bit of advice I would give is that you ensure you manage any future "scenarios" in a way that protects you . Always bear in mine what someone else might suggest when viewing the interaction from a distance. On the "poly test", I am assuming they offered that as a deterrent; not only being vindictive because you highlighted their errors, but also thinking you wouldn't want to take one. I always remember listening to others saying how they would answer the question "do you love children? Yes or No". When you have been through the turmoil many of us have, you start to think of 101 ways your answer could be misunderstood. I understand why you replied quoting the "student exams pass marks" but I feel they can take comments like that in the same way they say someone is in "denial" when they quote mitigation reasons. As an excuse to hide something. I would suggest not to speak those type of replies in future. Remember they have probably undertook the test many times and heard everything before and could be cynical. In regards to commenting on the errors made by the Police in your previous application, remember there is always the possibility that they could be taken as you suggesting they are incompetent and therefore not received well. The use of a solicitor would be wise to highlight those issues, as their words are received in a more acceptable manner. In fact they may even suggest you do not bother mentioning it and then you may get a more sympathetic reaction from them due to you not trying to embarrass them to the Judge. Finally on not knowing the results of the test, the use of a solicitor may gain the support for holding the hearing after the test results have been made. Otherwise I would just word a sentence in a positive manner for example: I willingly accepted the offer of a poly test to demonstrate my rehabilitation and positive character . Or something like that. Again I would not chastise the use of them as that is a negative view of the test, its purpose and of them. I do hope you see the more positive and not confrontational approach I am suggesting. You need their support more if you are alone; hence why something as important as this I have / are using a solicitor. Understanding that the financial restrictions of some, does make this a quality of life v financial balancing decision though. I wish you luck and look forward to reading other advice to you.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves. I'm having difficulty in posting the following, so I will try again. Dear Suprembeing. I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they came), and he answered satisfactorily to all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would o longer be contacting them. Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent correct. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded as that I had I lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
Hi I wasn't sure if you was asking AB2014 for further advice but I thought I'd reply on my info. I am pleased the SS outcome was as you hoped and I hope your friend and his family remain that, supportive friends. A bit of advice I would give is that you ensure you manage any future "scenarios" in a way that protects you . Always bear in mine what someone else might suggest when viewing the interaction from a distance. On the "poly test", I am assuming they offered that as a deterrent; not only being vindictive because you highlighted their errors, but also thinking you wouldn't want to take one. I always remember listening to others saying how they would answer the question "do you love children? Yes or No". When you have been through the turmoil many of us have, you start to think of 101 ways your answer could be misunderstood. I understand why you replied quoting the "student exams pass marks" but I feel they can take comments like that in the same way they say someone is in "denial" when they quote mitigation reasons. As an excuse to hide something. I would suggest not to speak those type of replies in future. Remember they have probably undertook the test many times and heard everything before and could be cynical. In regards to commenting on the errors made by the Police in your previous application, remember there is always the possibility that they could be taken as you suggesting they are incompetent and therefore not received well. The use of a solicitor would be wise to highlight those issues, as their words are received in a more acceptable manner. In fact they may even suggest you do not bother mentioning it and then you may get a more sympathetic reaction from them due to you not trying to embarrass them to the Judge. Finally on not knowing the results of the test, the use of a solicitor may gain the support for holding the hearing after the test results have been made. Otherwise I would just word a sentence in a positive manner for example: I willingly accepted the offer of a poly test to demonstrate my rehabilitation and positive character . Or something like that. Again I would not chastise the use of them lach I am suggesting. You need their support more if you are alone; hence why something as important as this I have / are using a solicitor. Understanding that the financial restrictions of some, does make this a quality of life v financial balancing decision though. I wish you luck and look forward to reading other advice to you. Thank you very much for such a piece of long comprehensive advice. I have not even though about the advice you have given. I made my original application through a Manchester solicitor whose firm was advertising as a specialist in the sex offences case. But I felt very disappointed with this solicitor. Though my offending manager had informed through an email that my case would be decided within the 3 months period, so is mentioned on a Government website, but he PPU took more than two years to give me a decision. I tried to contact this solicitor through phone and emails to chase the PPU to expedite. But over the two years from him, I did not receive any phone calls or emails from him. When I would phone his secretary, she would say that she would pass my message on to the solicitor. Previously I was approached from my then Offending PPU officer, who had drafted the letter and my SOPO was Varied from 5 prohibitions to a single one, and to his own words to a MANAGEABLE LEVEL. Two years later I got my SOPO discharged totally unopposed by the PPU solicitor, but by some hesitation by the court the magistrates. Though I had used a local Solicitor, who had admitted that he had not dealt before with any Sex Offences cases, but he would seek advice, if necessary, from his colleagues. So in both cases, he had hardly any work to do. If even now I am not removed from the register, I do not intend to appeal. This is because I might get any press adverse press publicity. I have moved to a new area, and would not like my growing-up child to be told that his father is a paedophile. He is four and a half years old and is my from the second marriage. From my previous marriage, I have 6 grown-up children who have moved far afield where I live. Incidentally in my previous cases, as mentioned above, there was no press reporter in the courtroom, where my csas were decided. But I may not be that lucky third time. And even if the PPU allows me to remove me from the register, I wonder, if the PPU ever find that I have been in contact with children, supervised or unsupervised, they would alert the children services. And this is not a big deal to remain on the register as I have only to inform at a police station of my foreign travel (which I do once a year) and give my bank and passport details which are almost the same from the day one. I have not ever stayed in a house for more than a few hours, whether there are children present or not. As, perhaps, you may have guessed that English is not my first language. I am not as eloquent as you would expect from a native speaker with good qualifications. So, I will not write directly to any such higher authorities such an important letter. As I have always done previously done I will use a solicitor, and in the present case to just write a letter. Thank you once again your continued support with such valuable advice. PS: I could not read your reply yesterday as I was in the hospital all day and when I came I felt so tired that I went to bed early.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves. I'm having difficulty in posting the following, so I will try again. Dear Suprembeing. I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they came), and he answered satisfactorily to all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would o longer be contacting them. Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent correct. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded as that I had I lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
Hi I wasn't sure if you was asking AB2014 for further advice but I thought I'd reply on my info. I am pleased the SS outcome was as you hoped and I hope your friend and his family remain that, supportive friends. A bit of advice I would give is that you ensure you manage any future "scenarios" in a way that protects you . Always bear in mine what someone else might suggest when viewing the interaction from a distance. On the "poly test", I am assuming they offered that as a deterrent; not only being vindictive because you highlighted their errors, but also thinking you wouldn't want to take one. I always remember listening to others saying how they would answer the question "do you love children? Yes or No". When you have been through the turmoil many of us have, you start to think of 101 ways your answer could be misunderstood. I understand why you replied quoting the "student exams pass marks" but I feel they can take comments like that in the same way they say someone is in "denial" when they quote mitigation reasons. As an excuse to hide something. I would suggest not to speak those type of replies in future. Remember they have probably undertook the test many times and heard everything before and could be cynical. In regards to commenting on the errors made by the Police in your previous application, remember there is always the possibility that they could be taken as you suggesting they are incompetent and therefore not received well. The use of a solicitor would be wise to highlight those issues, as their words are received in a more acceptable manner. In fact they may even suggest you do not bother mentioning it and then you may get a more sympathetic reaction from them due to you not trying to embarrass them to the Judge. Finally on not knowing the results of the test, the use of a solicitor may gain the support for holding the hearing after the test results have been made. Otherwise I would just word a sentence in a positive manner for example: I willingly accepted the offer of a poly test to demonstrate my rehabilitation and positive character . Or something like that. Again I would not chastise the use of them lach I am suggesting. You need their support more if you are alone; hence why something as important as this I have / are using a solicitor. Understanding that the financial restrictions of some, does make this a quality of life v financial balancing decision though. I wish you luck and look forward to reading other advice to you. Thank you very much for such a piece of long comprehensive advice. I have not even though about the advice you have given. I made my original application through a Manchester solicitor whose firm was advertising as a specialist in the sex offences case. But I felt very disappointed with this solicitor. Though my offending manager had informed through an email that my case would be decided within the 3 months period, so is mentioned on a Government website, but he PPU took more than two years to give me a decision. I tried to contact this solicitor through phone and emails to chase the PPU to expedite. But over the two years from him, I did not receive any phone calls or emails from him. When I would phone his secretary, she would say that she would pass my message on to the solicitor. Previously I was approached from my then Offending PPU officer, who had drafted the letter and my SOPO was Varied from 5 prohibitions to a single one, and to his own words to a MANAGEABLE LEVEL. Two years later I got my SOPO discharged totally unopposed by the PPU solicitor, but by some hesitation by the court the magistrates. Though I had used a local Solicitor, who had admitted that he had not dealt before with any Sex Offences cases, but he would seek advice, if necessary, from his colleagues. So in both cases, he had hardly any work to do. If even now I am not removed from the register, I do not intend to appeal. This is because I might get any press adverse press publicity. I have moved to a new area, and would not like my growing-up child to be told that his father is a paedophile. He is four and a half years old and is my from the second marriage. From my previous marriage, I have 6 grown-up children who have moved far afield where I live. Incidentally in my previous cases, as mentioned above, there was no press reporter in the courtroom, where my csas were decided. But I may not be that lucky third time. And even if the PPU allows me to remove me from the register, I wonder, if the PPU ever find that I have been in contact with children, supervised or unsupervised, they would alert the children services. And this is not a big deal to remain on the register as I have only to inform at a police station of my foreign travel (which I do once a year) and give my bank and passport details which are almost the same from the day one. I have not ever stayed in a house for more than a few hours, whether there are children present or not. As, perhaps, you may have guessed that English is not my first language. I am not as eloquent as you would expect from a native speaker with good qualifications. So, I will not write directly to any such higher authorities such an important letter. As I have always done previously done I will use a solicitor, and in the present case to just write a letter. Thank you once again your continued support with such valuable advice. PS: I could not read your reply yesterday as I was in the hospital all day and when I came I felt so tired that I went to bed early. Hi Thank you for your kind words about my info and please do ask if you are not sure about anything I write. In regard to solicitors I can recommend this gent Michel Phillips - +44 118931 4414 is his office number: Web site is - http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/ -
You will be able to read about his successes there. In regard to your mentioning that you only have to sign on once a year, please understand that you are still liable to the PPU visiting your home whenever they feel appropriate. This is so they can do risk assessments on you and will ask questions about many things. If they do visit, my approach is to work with them and be honest as this will be beneficial to the quality of your life in many ways. As far as contacting SS, they will do that if they feel your are a risk or to just to put pressure on you to see how you react. Remember public safety is foremost in their mind so DO NOT take it personally. Finally you have to realise you cannot control everything so there is a chance your children will be told about your offence. By accepting that you can then prepare how you will handle the situation. By accepting you cannot change the past you will be able to focus on yourself and accordingly face the future. Believe in the fact you do not wish to re-offend.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian." There is nothing in the notification requirements of being on the SOR that says you have to report all contact with any child. However, the police has a separate duty of safeguarding, and this is one they can pass to social services, so they can always say they're just doing their job. Because they see everyone on the SOR as all being the same, they will probably report any contact with an under-18 to social services, even if the person's offence involved a much older person of a different gender. They would see it in the same light as a report from a "concerned neighbour" about child neglect or cruelty, except in this case they don't have to do any investigation themselves. I'm having difficulty in posting the following, so I will try again. Dear Suprembeing. I am sorry to bother you once again, as I found the advice and information you have been giving me. Incidentally, I made a small contribution to Unlock about two weeks ago and intend to make more in the near future. Firstly re my friendship with a family friend who have young children; the PPU and Social Services visited my friend’s house but he was not in so they left a card to phone them which he did as soon as he came back home, ( soon afterwards they came), and he answered satisfactorily to all the question the PPU officer asked and they said that they would o longer be contacting them. Now a request on another matter As I previously mentioned that the PPU Superintendent is reconsidering my SOR removal application as in his original determination there were a few fatal mistakes. When I pointed it out, he accepted at least one mistake and decided to reconsider my application but invited to attend a voluntary Polygraph Test. Its result will have an impact on my case. But I will have to wait for up to 28 days to get a copy of it. So I won’t have a chance to defend myself against any negative polygraph report’s comments, as my reconsideration will already be underway. Only I can guess that the examiner said I was being dishonest when I said NO to the question that if I ever had any unsupervised contact a with children u/16. I pointed her out that I was telling the truth and anyway I have no restrictions on me to not have any unsupervised contact. Also, she mentioned out that the test was 85 t0 95 per cent correct. In reply, I commented that in school and colleges the students can pass a test with flying colours even when they get 75 to 80 per cent answers correct. To this comment, she concluded as that I had I lied at least once.
In addition to my original application to come off the reregister, which was declined, I want to send an additional application commenting on Grounds the PPU Superintendent gave for the rejection. But I won’t have a chance to say in my defence to any adverse comments made on the Polygraph results. Could I please have our advice on this matter?
Hi I wasn't sure if you was asking AB2014 for further advice but I thought I'd reply on my info. I am pleased the SS outcome was as you hoped and I hope your friend and his family remain that, supportive friends. A bit of advice I would give is that you ensure you manage any future "scenarios" in a way that protects you . Always bear in mine what someone else might suggest when viewing the interaction from a distance. On the "poly test", I am assuming they offered that as a deterrent; not only being vindictive because you highlighted their errors, but also thinking you wouldn't want to take one. I always remember listening to others saying how they would answer the question "do you love children? Yes or No". When you have been through the turmoil many of us have, you start to think of 101 ways your answer could be misunderstood. I understand why you replied quoting the "student exams pass marks" but I feel they can take comments like that in the same way they say someone is in "denial" when they quote mitigation reasons. As an excuse to hide something. I would suggest not to speak those type of replies in future. Remember they have probably undertook the test many times and heard everything before and could be cynical. In regards to commenting on the errors made by the Police in your previous application, remember there is always the possibility that they could be taken as you suggesting they are incompetent and therefore not received well. The use of a solicitor would be wise to highlight those issues, as their words are received in a more acceptable manner. In fact they may even suggest you do not bother mentioning it and then you may get a more sympathetic reaction from them due to you not trying to embarrass them to the Judge. Finally on not knowing the results of the test, the use of a solicitor may gain the support for holding the hearing after the test results have been made. Otherwise I would just word a sentence in a positive manner for example: I willingly accepted the offer of a poly test to demonstrate my rehabilitation and positive character . Or something like that. Again I would not chastise the use of them lach I am suggesting. You need their support more if you are alone; hence why something as important as this I have / are using a solicitor. Understanding that the financial restrictions of some, does make this a quality of life v financial balancing decision though. I wish you luck and look forward to reading other advice to you. Thank you very much for such a piece of long comprehensive advice. I have not even though about the advice you have given. I made my original application through a Manchester solicitor whose firm was advertising as a specialist in the sex offences case. But I felt very disappointed with this solicitor. Though my offending manager had informed through an email that my case would be decided within the 3 months period, so is mentioned on a Government website, but he PPU took more than two years to give me a decision. I tried to contact this solicitor through phone and emails to chase the PPU to expedite. But over the two years from him, I did not receive any phone calls or emails from him. When I would phone his secretary, she would say that she would pass my message on to the solicitor. Previously I was approached from my then Offending PPU officer, who had drafted the letter and my SOPO was Varied from 5 prohibitions to a single one, and to his own words to a MANAGEABLE LEVEL. Two years later I got my SOPO discharged totally unopposed by the PPU solicitor, but by some hesitation by the court the magistrates. Though I had used a local Solicitor, who had admitted that he had not dealt before with any Sex Offences cases, but he would seek advice, if necessary, from his colleagues. So in both cases, he had hardly any work to do. If even now I am not removed from the register, I do not intend to appeal. This is because I might get any press adverse press publicity. I have moved to a new area, and would not like my growing-up child to be told that his father is a paedophile. He is four and a half years old and is my from the second marriage. From my previous marriage, I have 6 grown-up children who have moved far afield where I live. Incidentally in my previous cases, as mentioned above, there was no press reporter in the courtroom, where my csas were decided. But I may not be that lucky third time. And even if the PPU allows me to remove me from the register, I wonder, if the PPU ever find that I have been in contact with children, supervised or unsupervised, they would alert the children services. And this is not a big deal to remain on the register as I have only to inform at a police station of my foreign travel (which I do once a year) and give my bank and passport details which are almost the same from the day one. I have not ever stayed in a house for more than a few hours, whether there are children present or not. As, perhaps, you may have guessed that English is not my first language. I am not as eloquent as you would expect from a native speaker with good qualifications. So, I will not write directly to any such higher authorities such an important letter. As I have always done previously done I will use a solicitor, and in the present case to just write a letter. Thank you once again your continued support with such valuable advice. PS: I could not read your reply yesterday as I was in the hospital all day and when I came I felt so tired that I went to bed early. 27 March. Thanks for your another prompt reply. I forgot to tell you that the PPU visits had reduced to about once a year. When my first review was rejected, the investigating officer had told me that the police visits would stop, they would only contact me now and then over the phone. As she went back and checked and confirmed that I had only one SOPO breach only in 2005, and not several breaches and that the last was not one in 2015. The breach was for attending a local gym, for which I was given a lighter sentence of rehabilitation order for which the Probation Services had recommended I had to attend a two years sexual offending programme, which I completed successfully. Had I I not pointed out this factor, I would have remained on SOR on rather easy terms. Now they would not be as kind. As you mentioned that if you challenge them they could Ivindictive. So that they invited me to attend Polygraph Interview. Also have you any idea what kind of press publicity can I expect t if I appeal in a magistrate the court, which I want to avoid at any cost. Incidentally, my children with me when I was sentenced. Thanks for giving me details of a competent lawyer, at whose Office I am going to phone tomorrow and asking Andrew to write a letter on my behalf to the Police Superandent. Thanks again for your continued immensely valuable advice.
|
|
|
|