Do this mean if you’re assessed as medium risk a notice might still be issued by someone who literally doesn’t even know you?

There’s a previous post or two saying the notices don’t generally get issued once you are assessed medium. So hopefully a notice being issued in this case would not be usual. There surely is a big difference between a package holiday with the wife and travelling alone or going to a high risk destination. 

There is a publicly available list of all the high risk countries. So you can use that as a start. If you are rated high risk as an individual, then you should probably forget about travelling until your risk is lower. Guidance does suggest that medium risk individuals are assessed on a case by case basis. But we do have quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Europe is a safe bet for most people, apart from Cyprus.

The most up-to-date 'Section 172' country list that punter99 references above can be found here: List of countries under section 172 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (accessible) (June 2026) - GOV.UK

Our understanding is that notification of travel to any country on the above list for anybody subject to notification requirements should result in an Interpol Green Notice being requested, regardless of the individual's risk level. However, anecdotally, we have heard from some individuals who have travelled to some of these countries without issue, having made the appropriate notification. Our advice however would remain that it would be very risky for anybody subject to notification requirements to travel to a Section 172 country. From our experience, if a S.172 country does receive an Interpol notification, they will generally refuse entry and you will be returned (at your own expense) to the UK.

Our understanding is also that the police are expected to issue a Green Notice for anybody they consider to pose a High/Very High Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH) when they notify travel to any country. This could result in refusal of entry in other countries too, although our experience is that refusal of entry altogether is extremely rare in most European (aside from as previously mentioned, Cyprus) countries. This specific risk level (ROSH) does not always align with what individuals might think or have been previously told, or what a Judge might say in court, by the way, which is worth bearing in mind. Almost all people subject to notification requirements will, at some stage, be assessed as posing a High risk, but most will find that risk reduces over time. If an individual has a copy of their most recent 'OASys Assessment', they will be able to find their ROSH risk levels there. ROSH scores have different categories - Risk to Children, Risk to Public, Risk to Known Adult, Risk to CJS Staff, and for people in prison, Risk to other Prisoners.

Decision-makers are instructed to consider notification on a case-by-case basis for offenders managed as Low/Medium ROSH. Again, as others have mentioned, the local officers only perform a risk assessment in relation to the travel arrangements and check the notification requirements have been complied with - they do not make the final determination about whether an Interpol Green Notice is in fact issued, although it might be fair to assume they probably make a 'recommendation'. The actual notification is done by a small team at HQ at the NCA in Manchester, who are 'Interpol Liaison Officers'. 

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

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

I think the whole point of the decision being made by someone who doesn't know you is that they don't know you, so they can't be swayed either way. Your local officer might be hostile, and might even hate everyone on the SOR as a matter of principle. Any officer who thinks that you're trustworthy might well be seen as having been manipulated. You can't win, so it's probably better to have someone else look at the paperwork and make their decision without any personal knowledge of you. 

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

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)

I just said "no" on the "Esta" (Visa waiver online form), to the question about criminal history.

This was the truth, as it said something about "...arrested for a crime that led to injury or destruction of property". A funny qualifier, as a bank robbery may not even do that.
You could say it's still a lie in spirit, but then again so is criminal record expiry generally, as it is a deliberate rugsweeping of historical fact.
In fact, so is the withholding of green notices.

I sailed through like nobody's business. 48 hours after dropping off the register. On the same passport known to the PPU.
I went via Ireland, as they do the pre-clearance checks so if it all goes wrong, it goes wrong on Irish soil, and you don't get wrapped in tin foil and made to sleep in a cage with the bandidos. Another advantage is that i'm not Googlable within Europe (e.g. by border guards inside Europe), having invoked the Right to be Forgotten thingy. I also carried a blank criminal record check with me in among a heap of identity documents. 

(warning: speculation ahead)

I also tend to believe that I would have successfully entered the USA a week earlier while ON the register, IF I had made it an impromptu second port of call (i.e. if all tangible planning for the USA trip had happened while already abroad). But that's a pet theory on this forum, which depends on several factors, and a bit of a digression and speculation.

I also half-believe that I would have successfully entered the USA travelling direct from UK while still medium risk on register. But the reason being the general disinterested attitude of the PPU - I just couldn't imagine them scrambling to alert anyone about me. 

It is not the PPU that make the decision to alert someone. That would be the NCA and unless you were considered high risk they had no reason to issue a green notice.

"Do you get the right to be forgotten thing once you come off the shpo ? I'm going to try to get removed after 5 years. How did you get a clean criminal record check as doesn't this show up forever ?"

Yes, the moment you have a clean Basic criminal record check (clean, that is, of the convictions and SHPOs resulting from the case mentioned in the media) this gives you a good standing to apply to have your negative press delisted from Google under the Right to be Forgotten (which is some sort of convention I think, which Google abides by in Europe, Bing not so much).

Being on the Register does not appear on your Basic criminal record check.
A SHPO does, but only until it is lifted.
Convictions do appear (obviously) but only if they're not "spent" (they expire after a while on your Basic certificate, like points on a driving license)

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (including now the Scottish version) ensures that a "basic" check doesn't show "spent" convictions. 
So my 18 month jail sentence from 2016 is now "spent" since 2022, and my Basic Certificate shows "no arrests or convictions". So I've had a clean criminal record certificate since 2022 even while still on the register. I've never had a SHPO, but I know that it appears on your Basic criminal record, and ceases to the moment it is lifted. 

Google's actual guidelines -- about whether to delist news stories about you --  probably say nothing about a SHPO -- it's American after all, and they don't assess the nuances of foreign systems. IF you tell them you still have a SHPO, that'll probably be a tiebreaker for them and they'll refuse to delist.

So the answer is yes, if your criminal conviction has become spent, and you're off the SHPO also, and consequently have a clean Basic criminal record certificate, this gives you very good default standing to ask Google to delist negative press, in searches connected with your name.

Even better news though : in most cases, Google are somewhat unlikely to even ask for evidence. You can just ping Google saying your conviction is spent and say nothing about a SHPO. If it's a plausible claim because the conviction is indeed old, they just ping you 10 hours later saying they took it down. I never sent Google a single photocopy of anything. If on the other hand you're a notorious case and the genie is out of the bottle, they won't bother to help you. So all very discretionary and ambiguous.  Something has changed recently -- they used to say "no" by default and ask for evidence, e.g. a scan of documents. Now they tend to delist by default and not ask for evidence, unless there's something weird that gets their attention.

 I don't know how nasty your particular case may be, but it doesn't sound too bad considering you are expecting to have a clean Basic certificate at some point?