By Jake - 2 Mar 20 7:17 PM
Hi
New to the form so not quite sure how this goes. I'm sure I will be guided in the right direction if not.
I have recently requested to have my order discharged and I contacted the court directly to see if I could do this on my own. I had a reply back from the judge stated "He is not minded to grant this discharge unless I requested for an Oral hearing". I have recently found out I can represent myself in court but have very little information to go on and so I am very unsure on how the process works. I have many questions like " what reports am I allowed to see and the do's and don'ts in court and above all how to represent myself in court?
I applied for this Oral hearing on 24/2/20 and not heard anything back as of today. How long does it usually take for the process from start to finish?
Jake.
|
By JASB - 9 Mar 20 3:23 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHi New to the form so not quite sure how this goes. I'm sure I will be guided in the right direction if not. I have recently requested to have my order discharged and I contacted the court directly to see if I could do this on my own. I had a reply back from the judge stated "He is not minded to grant this discharge unless I requested for an Oral hearing". I have recently found out I can represent myself in court but have very little information to go on and so I am very unsure on how the process works. I have many questions like " what reports am I allowed to see and the do's and don'ts in court and above all how to represent myself in court? I applied for this Oral hearing on 24/2/20 and not heard anything back as of today. How long does it usually take for the process from start to finish? Jake. I don't know how you would stand for disclosure of reports, etc., but Unlock has some general advice on what to include in your representations on their website here. As for do's and don'ts in court, just be polite and respectful, call the judge "Your Honour" and so on, but the court staff would be a better guide to what to do. When it comes to what not to do, you can always turn to Terry and June for a great example of how not to behave in court. 
The problem with oral hearings is that they have to be added to a long list, whereas if the judge had agreed to it being dealt with administratively (if the police have no objections), it wouldn't take up any court time and it would probably be all sorted out within a couple of weeks. They might be waiting to see if there's a cancellation in the offing. Hi AB2014, glad to hear your better. Just a point on your words. I recently posted how my Court Judges have decided that "all" applications for SOPO/SHOP amendments etc are to be heard in open Court with no media restrictions. It does not matter if the Police agree with your application or not. The Court officials told me more - if not all - Courts will be following this line. How I found out: My last SOPO amendment application I undertook with no representation as the Police agreed with the request. I wrote a letter giving reasons, evidence etc to the Judge on advice of the Court Officials. The officials would contact the PPU for their thoughts whether inside or out of the 5 year rule but I included an email response stating their agreement with my evidence. As my last application was held in Chambers I expected the same this time but I pulled my application due to the change in policy by the Court and the possibility of my new identity being published. I will reapply when they agree to remove my SOR so only risking media intrusion once. As far as dates for appearing - and as you mentioned- it all depends on the workload. In my case I was given one within a month. I do remember you posting that, and it does seem to be becoming more of a thing these days. The last time I discussed this with Unlock, they said that people were still able to get it done In Chambers, which would exclude everyone but the parties involved. Of course, if the police oppose your application, that won't happen. If they don't oppose it, that may improve the odds in your favour. Hi AB2014 My first application was supported by the PPU and ended up in Chambers as you state. My second application was also supported by the PPU but the Courts Judges policy had changed as I mentioned and so was to be heard in open Court. My concern is that the information provided to me suggests all Courts will now/soon align with this practice. I hope I am wrong but I know when I apply for final SOPO and SOR removal I will be in open Court and risk the obvious consequences. When you apply to be removed from the SOR, you apply to the police and the courts aren't involved. Of course, if the police refuse your application, you could appeal through the courts, but I'm guessing it would be via judicial review, and I'm also guessing the police would make sure all their paperwork is in order.... Hi Thanks for the details. Whenever someone mentions the Police and paperwork I smile as quite often they have told me they do not have time to read any historical documents so just rely on the conviction documents and do their own risk assessment. lol Various time I have had to produce the factual docs to prove something they had wrong. i.e. length of time on SOR and dates when I was sent to Prison etc That's life I suppose. "they do not have time to read any historical documents" Shortly after reading this, I came across the review of Joseph McCann's case. The failings of probation were numerous, but this guy was passed between multiple OMs, who mostly failed to read the historical details of his case, due to lack of time, being overworked and so on. Although not initially convicted of a sexual offence, he then went on to commit some of the worst offences, which could have been prevented had probation done their job and assessed his risk correctly. The next time PPU say they don't have time to read the full history of your case, it may be worth dropping a line to the Chief Constable, pointing out that they are putting the public at risk, by not doing their job adequately.
Hi
I understand your point BUT in my case by not reading the history they are assuming the worse scenario and so acting accordingly.
This means they are not only maintaining me as an admin burden ( though I only get visited 1 a year ) but diverting their limited resources away from true public protection if they are actively monitoring me. That is why they placed me on the SOR and SOPO is it not?
As my experience of communicating with the PPU authorities and their legal system has shown, generally it is best to document and raise the issues directly with the PPU and used as part of the supporting evidence when applying for amendments.
In everyday life the escalating of issues to an individual's superior normally gains a positive reaction. However, as SO's the reaction may in the short term seem positive but in the long term I suggest it would not be - unless you have solid and legally supported evidence.
Thanks and keep the conversation going.
|
|