By Mark15788 - 14 Jan 21 1:35 PM
Hoping this posts as I don't seem to be able to start a new thread.
Thought I would add it to my existing one.
I know that I need to report my new debit card within three days of today, as it has just arrived.
The bit that concerns me is the card states valid from 12/20, and the attached letter has no date on, so im worried they will think it was issued last month.
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jan 21 2:40 PM
Yes it came glued.
I’ve looked everywhere on the letter and there’s no date.
I have reported my bank account and debit card details previously, this debit card will be the new card as the previous one is expiring this month.
I do have a text from the bank saying expect your new card in five working days, think that will suffice if I’m asked?
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jan 21 3:06 PM
I already sent an email early in January to advise my debit card was expiring and he said the guidelines stipulated I can leave the house to fulfill legal obligations and therefore need to attend the police station.
Hopefully, the fact that I sent an email early January asking when I get the card shows that I was waiting and also the text backs up the card was only sent out a few days ago.
If worst comes to the worst they are more than happy to ring the bank and get clarification.
I’ve read online new cards normally have a overlap so that’s why it’s got on valid from 12/20.
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jan 21 5:10 PM
I’ll just head across tomorrow to do it and then email as a follow up.
|
By Mark15788 - 22 Feb 21 4:45 PM
Thought I’d add to this thread Dan.
I contacted the solicitors regulation authority and apparently they hold details of what happens to files when firms go into liquidation. They said their system has not updated so ring back in 30 days.
As for the solicitor I spoke to I’m not sure what to think. She’s the only one that replies in the area so I didn’t have anyone else to ask.
|
By Mark15788 - 23 Feb 21 9:55 AM
Yes, I’ll send her an email and see if she will respond to that question and information too.
|
By Mark15788 - 29 Jan 21 9:49 AM
I decided to bite the bullet yesterday and did some research online and contacted 2 firms of solicitors yesterday.
One lad rang me back this morning and asked for more information on what I wanted. He said he would need to speak with a colleague as he’s not sure if this can be dealt with under legal aid or if I’d have to pay as a private client.
|
By Mark15788 - 29 Jan 21 2:23 PM
Just an update, the lad rang me back and said it couldn’t be covered on legal aid. It would cost me £180+VAT.
Is that normal? Or should I shop around more.
|
By Mark15788 - 29 Jan 21 7:15 PM
I’m going to see if the other solicitor replies.
I told the chap that I would let him know.
The advantage is, there’s no time limit, they said the consultation would take as long as it would take to get through everything i want to discuss.
|
By Mark15788 - 29 Jan 21 8:01 PM
Yeah I’ll hopefully have a reply from the other one this coming week.
|
By Mark15788 - 3 Apr 20 10:35 AM
Morning,
I was convicted April 2018 and then went on to my annual registration in April 2019.
In December 2019 because of my SHPO I also reported a new device, my police force just record this on the usual registration form.
I then thought my annual registration would be April 2020 but I’m told the date would of restarted in December so it’s December 2020.
Is this correct?
I asked for verification from my risk management officer and he confirmed over text that it was December 2020.
My probation officer said it might be best to speak direct to the team in the police so I rang 101 and they transferee next to someone who said they were too busy right now to go by whatever the correspondence (text) said.
Just has me slightly worried now.
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 9:16 PM
Yes, I’ll have a look.
Will I be able to approach any solicitor for advice?
My solicitor does not work for the same firm anymore because it doesn’t exist no more.
On my other point, will it cause trouble that my first allocated officer didn’t record the router I had in my house when I was convicted and insisted he didn’t need it?
|
By Mark15788 - 25 Jan 21 10:00 AM
I appreciate the replies.
I suffer really bad with anxiety and take medication so I really struggle sometimes with this sort of thing and thinking I’d be the one that got a bollocking for them not recording it.
I think also it comes down to individual officers and how they work and interpret things.
|
By Mark15788 - 26 Jan 21 5:49 PM
Thanks! It’s not nice!
I just worried because my first officer retired. After conviction/sentencing which was nearly 3 years ago we set up an initial meeting to go through things, all he asked for was details about my phone, my phone provider and broadband provider, so he clearly knew I had a router but asked for no details.
My worry was if they were to get my report of a new router and they say m “oh there’s no record of your first router” and try and suggest I failed to tell them. I’d have no proof as it was a face to face meeting just me and him.
The wording of the Shpo is confusing too as it talks about acquisition of a device so that seems like new devices not exdisting ones held before conviction.
I just worry too much.
|
By Mark15788 - 26 Jan 21 7:50 PM
Thanks for the reassurance.
My current officer did actually say to me, I’m the only one on his caseload that asks questions and asks for clarification.
He knows I have a new router coming and he said just report it three days from receiving it.
So I should stop worrying really, just in my nature I think.
|
By Mark15788 - 28 Jan 21 10:31 AM
I think what I’ll do is I’ll try and approach a local solicitor and just ask if s/he can look over my order etc and make sure it’s smith compliant.
I don’t have an issue with reporting the router or anything else for that matter, if they want all the paperwork that’s up to them to sit there and process it.
My main worry as I’ve already mentioned was the fact when I was convicted and sentenced I already had a router and they knew this but they wanted no details. I would have no proof that the conversation took place or what was said. Therefore they could say I’ve breached but then again, how do they prove it too?
My anxiety has just shot up this week.
|
By Mark15788 - 28 Jan 21 1:45 PM
I appreciate the comments. As I’ve said before I suffer with anxiety and I am a natural worrier so I tend to over think everything.
It’s arrived about 5 minutes ago so I’m going to head over in the morning to report it as a new device.
|
By Mark15788 - 15 Jul 21 8:01 AM
I got a new officer in March as I moved homes, same force area just new locality area. He seems more clued up than anyone else I’ve dealt with. I wish you luck too, I know it seems a while away but I’m sure you will get there soon enough and it will all work out.
|
By Mark15788 - 15 Jul 21 5:03 PM
I’ve never been asked for usernames for sites, logins, etc, they would be there all day recording them all.
|
By Mark15788 - 15 Jul 21 9:10 PM
Which is why I’ve constantly got everything in writing now, so if anyone comes along and says you didn’t do X or you haven’t done Y and I have something in writing telling me I do don’t need to or something was interpreted in another way, surely that’s my evidence?
I hope and prey I never need to use any of this documentation but you never know.
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 5:30 PM
I spoke to my officer he told me to report it when I receive it.
I was concerned that he might say something about my first officer not wanting the details of the router I had when I was convicted.
Can you explain what’s wrong with my order?
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 6:02 PM
Ah sorry no, mine was not an image based offence.
I decided the best thing to do was to get in touch with my allocated officer and he said he would want me to go in and register the new router so I said I would do this once it arrived.
My concern was because I was probably naive at the beginning of all this was, once convicted I went and did my notification and then once sentenced and given the SHPO I had an initial meeting with the allocated officer at the time which was different to who I have now and he didn’t record the details of my router just my phone and laptop. So was thinking will this cause issues? Will they think I had failed to register the first router? Because it was a face to face meeting there is no record to back up the convo from three years ago.
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 6:31 PM
Basically what happened was, the CPS were trying to prosecute me for something I believed I had not done and therefore pleaded not guilty throughout.
My solicitor was trying to get the charge changed to a lesser charge and in the end that’s what happened, the CPS accepted this as I was prepared to please guilty as that’s what I was guilty of.
I had the hearing, pleaded guilty and had a same day appointment to get the PSR complete, my barrister told me that they were not making an application for a SHPO.
Four weeks later I attended sentencing and that’s when I found out an application had been made and granted. I was handed it at the end.
|
By Mark15788 - 23 Jan 21 7:43 PM
Just another question from me.
Have you lot reported a new router?
My assumption is it doesn't fall under "acquisition of a new device capable of connecting to the internet" because the router is the actual thing that allows your devices to connect.
Just having issues at the moment and there sending me a new one in the post.
My old router was already set up before I was convicted and when I was convicted the only details they took was details of my phone, laptop and who my service provider was, but no router details.
|
By Mark15788 - 7 Apr 21 3:35 PM
Finally got a reply from someone connected to my original solicitors firm. They sent me an email. Hopefully will be able to get access to my file they hold.
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jul 21 10:58 AM
I’ve been asked before what my email address is but it’s not a requirement that’s mentioned but I have never been asked for passwords.
I’ve never actually been asked specifically with regards to social media. I’m not on anything anyway.
Although FB was mentioned once because i know it’s in their terms of use/conditions that convicted sex offenders can’t use the site, so really anyone with a SO shouldn’t be. However, terms of use/conditions surely isn’t law, so therefore if you chose to use it, the police couldn’t prosecute?
As for other social media platforms I have no idea what there terms of use or conditions state.
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jul 21 8:37 PM
Ive started to learn to query everything, get it in writing and save it all, I was also advised by a solicitor and I don’t know how much it will really help but to write a record of every visit, what was asked, mentioned and said to the best of my ability, add date and fine and who was present and keep that too. I have 1 year and 9 months left and I can’t wait to have it all end.
|
By Mark15788 - 14 Jul 21 8:38 PM
That should read date & time.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 8:16 AM
Stuff I’ve done since conviction are: attend talking therapies for MH, complete a course of CBT, study for qualifications in business, customer service and team leading, currently studying for my BTEC diploma L4 in business, re-engage with family, complete my community order and horizon course, followed the SHPO, not reoffended or received any warnings etc.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 8:23 AM
Last thing...
Polygraph. She said it’s a new thing the police have lashed on to.
She advised to not agree to it, not very scientific, my health issues like anxiety and my nerve damage from my diabetes that causes me to sometimes sweat more and my BP that fluctuates would all contribute in likeliness to false positives.
She pointed out all refusal would do would probably increase their perceived risk level and increase visits.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 11:40 AM
Mine is fixed at 5 years anyway. So hopefully they won’t decide to challenge it and it will just end. At least I have a little reassurance that because I’ve cooperated, done a lot to address behaviour and circumstances in my life and move forward with education etc I wouldn’t give them the grounds to ask for an extension and if they did hopefully a judge would say no.
I just want to put this biggest mistake of my life behind me and move on.
I’m not eager to go back to court and vary anything now, I’ve coped 3 years so another 2 should be ok, I just wanted clarification on what my rights are. So I suppose talking to the solicitor did help me.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 3:51 PM
Yeah the solicitor I spoke to said if I had any more questions just to send her an email so maybe I’ll ask if it’s worth complaining about what I was told and what happened.
My belief is, once the end date is reached, it just ends, I don’t think anything official is meant to happen.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 3:58 PM
Quick side question too..my original solicitors has been liquidated. Is there a way to still get access to my file?
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 4:39 PM
Thanks. I’ll have a look into that too.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 8:07 AM
She did bring up the notification requirements because she said they don’t include reporting of devices they have to include it in the SHPO.
My offence was, attempted sexual communication with a child.
|
By Mark15788 - 6 Feb 21 8:13 AM
Let’s see if this posts this time.
On the aspect of the police threats of “they can extend if they want”.
She said there would need to be evidence of concern and to ignore them. She said after listening to what I had done to help myself she couldn’t see how they would justify it.
|
By Mark15788 - 5 Feb 21 10:19 PM
I have more to say but right now it’s not letting me post long paragraphs again!!
|
By Mark15788 - 3 Feb 21 3:57 PM
Sorry I didn't see this.
I received a community order for 2 years and 5 years SHPO and sex offenders register.
This May ill be 3 years through.
Yes originally I was informed there would be no SHPO and then one was issued at sentencing which I hadn't seen in advance.
I know social services had a disclosure as they contacted my mother in relation to bro and sis, they sent a letter saying no action needed.
I also know DBS were informed and alter I made representations they decided not to place me on any of the barred lists.
|
By Mark15788 - 3 Feb 21 4:02 PM
Having trouble replying again, sorry if there are duplicates.
Just to add..
I complete the community order with no issues and the horizon course.
Was always told I was doing well.
Last officer visit, they mentioned polygraph testing and that its optional but also that they can get the SHPO renewed after 5 years if needed, scare tactic for some reason? Id love to know on what grounds?
Tel appt with solicitor on Friday afternoon.
|
By Mark15788 - 4 Feb 21 5:11 PM
Well I’ve made my notes and questions.
Let’s hope the money spent gets me some answers.
|
By Mark15788 - 5 Feb 21 10:08 PM
I’m not sure if the cost of the appointment was well spent..
In terms of smith compliant she said in her eyes it is, she did mention two further points though.
1. Yes it’s correct I should of been given a copy before sentencing, however she suspects the solicitor received a copy and failed to show me.
2. The device prohibitation. She said with technology changing and advancing and more and more products connecting to the internet. If it got to the point where I was always attending the station to report something, maybe that prohibitation could be more specific to what devices it includes. On the back of that though, 2 years left, by the time she submitted it and the courts worked through backlogs, is it worth it and the money? A choice for me.
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 11:01 AM
I can’t do word for word as the forums won’t let me post long posts. It needs fixing!!
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 11:31 AM
My SHPO just states that I am prohibited from using a computer or a device UNLESS, it has been reported to the police within 3 days of acquisition, that its capable of retaining the history of internet use and that I should make all computers and devices available for inspection on request.
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 11:32 AM
So to be how does a router fall under that?
|
By Mark15788 - 24 Jan 21 1:12 PM
See if this uploads. 
|
By Mark15788 - 1 Feb 21 5:04 PM
Spoke to a few more today, in the end I’ve went with the first one as they have no time limit on the consultation.
I’ll ask about the smith compliant thing, I’m also going to see if I can get clarification on a few points, alongside this with the mention of polygraph testing last year I’m going to see what he has to say.
They said they would go through anything I wanted in relation to the SHPO. Any suggestions on what else I should ask? Use my lovey wisely kind of thing.
|
By Mark15788 - 23 Jan 21 11:01 PM
No mention of router in the SHPO just devices.
|
By Mr W - 14 Jan 21 3:00 PM
It’s worth a quick call to tell your ppu it came today. As long as you’re showing you’re playing by their rules, it should be fine. They may even take registration of it over the phone since we’re in lockdown. Main point is don’t worry 
|
By Mr W - 13 Jul 21 2:38 PM
Annual form filling… I’ve heard of a case, and I’ve now had this myself, of being asked specifically what social media sites I’m on. Usernames are mandatory, what we do with them is not. I felt a LOT of pressure to answer this with the obvious feeling of ‘if you don’t answer, you’re hiding something’. I answered honestly but I wish I hadn’t answered at all. Anyone else had this?
|
By Mr W - 13 Jul 21 6:31 PM
Yes, you're absolutely right to do so. Like I say, I wish I didn't answer that Q now, it caught me off guard, but I wonder what their response would have been if I hadn't. I won't be answering it next year anyway.
|
By Mr W - 14 Jul 21 5:25 PM
Well, this is hilarious and why I get so frustrated with my current force. Re: Facebook and passwords… Force A said: “What’s your password for Facebook, you don’t have to give it if you don’t want to,” which was kind of him and he almost laughed it off, and obviously I said I don’t want to give it and there was no issue at all. Then moved house, Force B: “Why are you on Facebook… T&Cs blah blah… “ deleted it off my phone and threatened to get in touch with Facebook. I actually rang Force A and explained what had happened, they said that’s wrong. So I said to force B you can’t do that, I put it back on my phone and they haven’t said anything since.
|
By Was - 24 Jan 21 11:28 AM
My understanding is that SRO changes must be done in person at a police station, but SROs do not include a requirement to notify devices. You don't even have to give your mobile phone number if you don't want to. Notification of devices for complying with a SHPO can be done legally by email, but your PPO might want to be an arse about it, and they are always entitled to inspect them under most SHPOs if they so wish. I reported my Fire TV Sticks, DVR, TV and laser printer by email, because they have WiFi and/or an ethernet connection. Not taking any chances!
|
By punter99 - 15 Jul 21 4:37 PM
On the question of what info you have to give the PPU. I was told that any usernames must be disclosed, as notification rules include disclosing "any other name you are known by". It doesn't matter whether the SHPO mentions usernames or not.
Also my SHPO includes a catch all clause which says I must not refuse to disclose any details of my "internet activity". So vaguely worded, it can mean anything the PPU wants it to. By writing it as a negative requirement - 'must not refuse' - they can get around the current restrictions on not requiring positive actions. This is very common in SHPOs. Must not refuse to allow the PPU to inspect your devices, for example, is a positive action, disguised as a negative.
|
By punter99 - 15 Jul 21 5:12 PM
You may not be asked directly for usernames. But in the notification rules it talks about any "other names you are known by". It doesn't say specifically whether this includes names you are only known by online, such as usernames, email addresses etc. But when I discussed it with my second PPU, their interpretation of this wording is that it does include usernames. The first PPU never mentioned this to me at all, so I could well have been in breach of the law for ages, without knowing it.
So it will depend on how your individual PPU interprets the meaning of the phrase "other names you are known by".
|
By khafka - 16 Jul 21 11:24 AM
When I did my first ever registration I never gave usernames but then a few weeks later on my first visit by PPU they advised they needed them and the relevant website. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I have loads of registrations on various websites, forums, etc. a lot I can't even remember but would put me technically in breach if I didn't hand it over. But if I don't remember the login, I don't remember the website then I'm not sure what else I'm expected to do.
So in the end I went along the following day with 2 x A4 sheets of paper written front and back with all the usernames and websites I could remember in a list, like "Khafka - Unlock - forum.unlock.org.uk". Bit of malicious compliance but hey-ho.
|
By khafka - 27 Jan 21 10:53 PM
Good idea with Pastebin. Password: B2vdh4TTQf https://pastebin.com/R20PJZ4w
|
By Simon1983 - 14 Jan 21 4:23 PM
I once had a PPU officer that was happy for you to email a picture of the debit card and would take that as proof of notification, on day these rules will be more clear cut and not open to interpretation
|
By Simon1983 - 13 Jul 21 5:20 PM
This question always seems to come up, and these are not the only questions they are asking one example is car registration number. As the rules state there is nothing that says you are required to give this information, as we all know its name, date of birth, address etc etc they can add as many questions on the form as they like, but unless you have an active SOPO or SHPO that compiles you to enfrom PPU of all your social media and emails etc etc then my response is no, as there is no legal requirement.
|
By Simon1983 - 14 Jul 21 7:17 AM
Sadly there are many SOPO and SHPO out there that state you have to give police details including passwords of accounts, of social media email etc etc, yes they have been challenged but sadly not always overturned it’s why the new police crime and sentencing bill has made an amendment for SHPO/SOPO to contain positive actions so it is then covered fully by law then no legal challenges can be made
|
By Simon1983 - 14 Jul 21 9:28 AM
Sure here you go
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/42132/documents/484#page164
this is the bill as has been passed by the House of Commons and is now in the lords for approval, the loads have made it know that they will not be making any major amendments, the section you want to look at is Claus 149 and it states
A sexual harm prevention order may— 10
(a) prohibit the offender from doing anything described in
the order;
(b) require the offender to do anything described in the
They are using this new bill to clamp down on a person convicted of a sex offence
|
By Simon1983 - 14 Jul 21 8:33 PM
It gets more stupid as time goes on, each force does its own thing and we are in the middle, yet it will be us up in front of the judge when it goes wrong. One of the biggest bugbears i have is how different forces interpret the resetting of the clock when it comes to notification some of the Horror stories i have seen on here in past posts over the years.
|
By Simon1983 - 14 Jul 21 11:10 PM
Wish you all the best, I have till jan 2025 till I can apply to come off, been on in since my release in jan 2010 (3 yrs sentence images only ) have not herd from my PPU officer in close to three years and the last home visit was about that as well, I look forward to the fun and games in 2025 as the Met police don’t make it easy
|
By Simon1983 - 15 Jul 21 6:42 PM
Total agree it is the point i make all the time how we are all told different things we are left wide open in the eyes of the law. As somebody that is studying law at the moment i have spent time trying to see where some of this confusion stems from and my initial thoughts are that this document is the cause and the changes that came about in 2012
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755142/11.18guidanceonpart2ofthesexualoffencesact2003.pdf
|
By Simon1983 - 15 Jul 21 6:43 PM
The above document was published in 2018 and under the notification section states the phrase online user names in brackets, if you then look at section 83 and 84 of the SOA 2003 it makes no reference to online names, only reference to legal name you are known by, one would argue that an online user name is not your legal name. (Open for discussion) this is why some PPU officers think they can ask and some believe they cant. The Act is the law, a guide is not law.
|
By Simon1983 - 15 Jul 21 6:45 PM
The other confusion is the resetting of the clock for notification, it is only changes that come under section 84 that reset the clock, yet there are PPU officers that due to confusion will reset the clock if you tell them about travel overseas, travel overseas is covered by section 86 SOR 2003 you would hope that PPU officers have nothing to do other than supervise offenders you would think that they would all be on the same hymn sheet when it come to the rules, its not the biggest document to read, that my moan for the evening
|
By Simon1983 - 15 Jul 21 6:45 PM
Sorry i had to post in three parts there
|
By lotsofquer - 27 Jan 21 10:23 PM
Unable to post long response related to the SHPO conditions so trying pastebin. Password is WKBucACAr7
Link is https://pastebin.com/ufht4GU6
|
By lotsofquer - 28 Jan 21 1:20 PM
I wouldn't worry about the previous router. Your orders clearly state "within 3 days of aquisition". You did not aquire the previous router after your orders came about - it was already something you had so it would be a complete waste of time for them to try breach you for something you aren't required to do. Also if I recall correctly you mentioned that you told them who your ISP was so they know you have the internet. Given they weren't interested and clearly know that you have internet then again trying to breach you is just a waste of everytimes time and likely they will be laughed out of court. If they were to go down that route then any first year law student would be able to get that thrown out. Not a lawyer btw but just my two cents.
|
By lotsofquer - 28 Jan 21 8:55 PM
Reply to Khafka's post above.
Password f8ucbyrGq9
https://pastebin.com/pZKhkF3i
|
By xDanx - 14 Jan 21 2:28 PM
I assume your debit card came in the post attached (glued) to a letter?
If so does the letter its self provide a date?
If you have already given bank account details as well as previous debit card information I don't think you have anything to worry about. But if in doubt see if you can speak to your PPU.
|
By xDanx - 22 Feb 21 10:33 PM
If the solicitor you spoke to recently is still willing to take your emails and answer any questions, forward the information I posted in the standard shpo restrictions thread and see what she says. Solicitor who dealt with your case to begin with should have argued the notification of devices, but get confirmation from the solicitor you spoke too.
|
By xDanx - 24 Jan 21 1:01 AM
Try again....
If you could share what the order says word for word I could give some further insight. According to my previous PPU he stated to me that if it is not written in my orders then there is no restriction. The fact that your order does not specifically mention routers, then technically you do not have to notify or provide details. However, if your order states you must notify and provide details then given the router is in technical terms a device that provides internet access to other devices, it can be classed as an internet enabled device.
|
By xDanx - 25 Jan 21 9:01 AM
It never hurts to call up some local firms and ask questions which focus on criminal case types, I have done the same and honestly most I have spoken too simply know nothing about the smith court of appeal or any knowledge of the link I provided. How the PPU do their job really isn't your responsibility. if you offered the router and other devices for them to inspect and they decide not to is no fault of your own.
|
By xDanx - 25 Jan 21 5:14 PM
I understand completely, I too struggle with anxiety from time to time. I have made complaints relating to my own conviction and SHPO which honestly seem to be falling on deaf ears but I am not giving up. Give yourself time to absorb the info and then when you feel ready to start challenging things speak to a few solicitors and question whether your SHPO is smith compliant.
|
By xDanx - 26 Jan 21 7:14 PM
I understand how hard it is not worry, given the limited knowledge police have when it comes to technology. If your first officer failed to obtain the details of your previous router and the new officers try to make it an issue, you can simply state you offered it for inspection but he declined to record the details. Then explain your order states to notify of new devices which you have done with in 3 days of acquiring it. Because you have offered it it is then up to the officers how they proceed. My old PPU always appreciated my calls if there was anything I was unsure about as in his eyes that was me making sure I am following my order.
|
By xDanx - 29 Jan 21 6:38 PM
I sat and spoke with one solicitor who kindly gave me 1 hour 30 mins of her time to discuss my SHPO in detail. At the time I didn't know what I know now in regards to whether the SHPO was smith compliant. She never even mentioned it herself which makes me wonder how well known being smith compliant really is, but she did have issues with some of my restrictions. Eventually she told me for her to proceed and get my SHPO clarified it was going to cost me £750. Another firm wanted the same money for just reading an email detailing my SHPO restrictions.
|
By xDanx - 14 Jul 21 7:43 AM
"new police crime and sentencing bill has made an amendment for SHPO/SOPO to contain positive actions so it is then covered fully by law then no legal challenges can be made"
Could you find a link on this?
|
By xDanx - 24 Jan 21 4:18 PM
This is seriously becoming annoying now.....
Until you get your order amended ( which you can do at any point ) you will have to notify them of all devices. I would include the router just to keep you safe so they dont make things harder for you.
I am no legal professional but from my research I do not believe your SHPO is smith compliant and your solicitor should have amended it.
Did they attempt to do so or were you simply given the SHPO right after court?
|
By xDanx - 24 Jan 21 5:56 PM
If I recall correctly you mentioned your offence related to images? (apologies if that is incorrect)
If so then based on the information I have found both from the forum and other sources, SHPO's have to be what is considered "smith compliant"
What that basically means is SHPO's must be proportionate to an individuals offence, one example being: Those with image related offences (non contact) should not be given restrictions on contact if there is no evidence, especially when an individual has children of their own and could be considered an infringement of their child's rights to family life. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7a360d03e7f57eb094c paragraphs 21, 22, 23
|
By xDanx - 24 Jan 21 6:08 PM
I also believe the order to notify police of devices is also being miss-used as it is not the purpose of the SHPO to force an individual to provide information as that is the purpose of the notification requirements. I will link the relevant source when I come across it again. But to put it simply. The SHPO are the donts where as the notification requirements are the do's.
If you were not given time to read and understand the contents of your order at least 2 days before sentencing and if no amendments were made by your solicitor, then I believe that also makes your SHPO not smith compliant if the order was given to you the same day as sentencing.
|