I have been through this and if the laptop is owned by you then you need to allow the police to inspect it and if your SHPO specifies it they can also install monitoring software on it. This is regardless of whether there is client data or not held on it.

As any monitoring software should only be looking for suspicious activity and client data shouldn't be brought up. Although the monitoring software is not always that good, one of my false flags was down to a phrase I typed into an accounts package. My officer questioned why I had been using this phrase and indicated I had searched for it, I spent 5 minutes telling her that I hadn't searched for that phrase at which point she said was it possibly an invoice..so she knew all along it was an invoice I was creating and not a term I had been searching.

If you are employed by someone and they own the laptop and it is given to you for work purposes then this is different, normally your SHPO dictates in this case that you must tell the police about the laptop. This though comes with its own problems.

If its a laptop you purchased yourself and use often either work related or not, and browse on it ect. I would say yes the police would need to at least inspect it during their visits, you could argue the use of monitoring software for data protection reasons. If they insist on installing monitoring software then you could attempt to amend the SHPO to remove the use of monitor software entirely.

If it was a laptop just given to you by your employer then no, they should not be allowed access to it. But then police would want to confirm this with your employer, which then might cause some problems if your employer did not know about the SHPO or conviction.

I asked this question when monitoring software was installed on my laptop, in case I landed a remote-working job. The police were quite clear that the active part of the software looks for suspicious activity and flags that up to them. Any sensitive information is still subject to the Data Protection Act 2018, so although they have an exemption for the prevention and detection of crime, that doesn't include things that aren't suspicious. So, they have the right to have the software check the information but it wouldn't be investigated further unless they opened another investigation into me and my activities.

=========================================================================================================

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)

Oh, this is a really interesting question.  If I have a dedicated work laptop/computer at home which contains client details, would this be able to be monitored as part of an SHPO?  Obviously GDPR states that data you keep on clients should only be accessed by those who require the access for terms of their work, and for the specific reasons why the data was collected etc.  Also in line with GDPR id that data was no longer needed for the task it was collected for, then it would have to be deleted, and we all know how people feel about deleting anything...  Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Hi
I think that "personal satisfaction" is accepted by the authorities but it is the "aid method" that they are interested in. Whilst inside I was being trained by the Samaritans to be a listener and the tutors included a lady of about 150 years of age. Her opening gambit was to ask who frequented but before anyone admitted she said "I still do!" 

Over the years I have been asked about this and I always stress that even when couples have intimacy, at times the "manual" act of stimulation is used; so how is it a problem?

I have also raised the points that the authorities stress a "casual sex partner" is not positive and with a "permeant" partner disclosure raises its head and so consequences. 

Rather than rant on with more one liners I think a point I would offer for consideration is that, when the subject is raised they are only seeking to start a discussion to discovery the source and type of material that is used.
Once known this can open a lot more paths for them to explore regarding your "Sexual desires and controls".

Remember we only committed an offence because in the basis of concepts "we lost control of our sexual desires".



Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

Probably why the PPU always try to encourage porn use? So if SO do attempt to apply for discharge they can use it against them to prevent it from being discharged. 

My old SO would constantly tell me he has no issue with me accessing porn, the few times that I had at the very early stages after my sentencing I was constantly asked "why you looking at this" ect including times when friends would send me involuntary videos which he would question "she seems young dont you think"
Annoyingly, he some how managed conduct his visit while my Probation officer was present with another person who was trying to sign me up for some training classes. I was then told she was unable to help me and I was then assigned a new probation officer who was closely linked to my PPU ironically.

So from that day forward I battled my way forward and limited access to porn and told my friends to stop sending me videos, my PPU over time would then just use the fact I am not accessing porn a risk factor.

Strange decision. Taking away the monitoring software after saying your behaviour was concerning?  The whole porn thing is typical of the PPU. Since sexual preoccupation is considered a risk factor, then any porn use should be an issue, but they still insist it is not a problem, until it goes to court and then suddenly it is a problem after all.

Just to update on this my discharge was refused by the court. The police argued that they had found on a previous visit small number of visits to legal porn sites which caused them concern. The judge agreed with the police this was a concern . So it was refused

I did manage to get my SHPO varied so that the police can no longer install monitoring software on my devices. As I succeeded in getting a variation the judge ruled I didn't need to pay costs.

I did have a visit from my PPU this month who confirmed I am still low risk. She did state that she has no problem with me viewing porn if I wanted to. 

On the plus side it has given me a kick to prove I can still do things even with the order in place. I am not going to let it hold me back. 

Thanks Evan

None of that applies to me. I will update everyone with the outcome of the hearing when it has occurred.

Ordinarily courts are not quick to award costs in SHPO variation/discharge cases - not least because they are "civil" hearings and not criminal ones.

Generally, a court would only be expected to award costs where at least one of the following criteria were met:

• The Applicant brought a 'hopeless' or 'abusive' variation application
• The Applicant acted unreasonably in making their application
• The Applicant failed to engage sufficiently, causing additional expense
• The Applicant failed to appear at a hearing upon being ordered to do so

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.