By punter99 - 17 Oct 25 12:00 PM
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost?
The CPR says the judge can make a decision without a hearing, only if the law in question allows them to. The SOA only allows this if you are less than 5 years in and the police object. Since you are at 6 years that does not apply. But in any case the following paragraph says they MUST allow you to make representations, INCLUDING representations about whether or not there should be a hearing. see Para 16(b).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b99428cc8356c3c882aac6/crim-proc-rules-2025-part-31.doc
One other thing. Before looking at solicitors you might want to consider the Citizens Advice Bureau. They cannot represent you at court, but they will be able to help you in setting out your arguments for the court.
|
By Richie - 17 Oct 25 12:13 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? The CPR says the judge can make a decision without a hearing, only if the law in question allows them to. The SOA only allows this if you are less than 5 years in and the police object. Since you are at 6 years that does not apply. But in any case the following paragraph says they MUST allow you to make representations, INCLUDING representations about whether or not there should be a hearing. see Para 16(b). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b99428cc8356c3c882aac6/crim-proc-rules-2025-part-31.docOne other thing. Before looking at solicitors you might want to consider the Citizens Advice Bureau. They cannot represent you at court, but they will be able to help you in setting out your arguments for the court.
Thank you for that it is what I have been looking at as well so just confirms to me I am right and the judge shouldn't have dismissed it without a hearing.
I will look into the Citizens Advice Bureau and see what they can offer me.
I have raised this with the court and they are going to get back to me (at court pace that could be a fair time!)
|
By xDanx - 17 Oct 25 2:17 PM
+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above.
I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application.
The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided?
If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device.
If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely.
|
By Richie - 17 Oct 25 11:55 PM
+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely.
This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide.
I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration.
So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June?
If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court?
|
By punter99 - 18 Oct 25 10:05 AM
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court?
There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see.
As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing.
|
By Richie - 18 Oct 25 5:04 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing.
Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application.
I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal.
To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week.
Thank for your help
|
By xDanx - 18 Oct 25 8:56 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing. Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application. I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal. To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week. Thank for your help
As I mentioned before, it is vital you send a Subject Access Request to Police as anything they have said behind your back could also go in your favor.
|
By Richie - 19 Oct 25 8:21 AM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing. Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application. I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal. To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week. Thank for your help As I mentioned before, it is vital you send a Subject Access Request to Police as anything they have said behind your back could also go in your favor.
Thank you I will do this as well
|
By Evan Davis - 20 Oct 25 1:49 PM
Generally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up.
In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly.
I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal.
The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx
|
By Richie - 20 Oct 25 4:38 PM
+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx
Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well.
I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled.
|
By Mr W - 20 Oct 25 7:11 PM
Hi Richie, I hope it goes well. I applied for discharge a few years ago and had similarly frustrating experience. It wasn't thrown out but the outcome wasn't great either.
I echo what everyone else has said, I got a SAR and submitted all the positives, I had no breaches etc and this was 6/7 years after conviction. Have a think about what to say if you're speaking, don't make excuses or slag off police (which is so tempting) - purely be positive about yourself and dig deep into the HOW you've changed. As you can imagine a lot of people say they've changed and when it comes down to having pressure applied, haven't truly changed at all.
When it came to the police, they only agreed to one change before the hearing. However, their representation in court didn't talk about post-conviction at all, he just went over the original offending and the images etc. I was surprised how negative they were and it was unhelpful because as far as we're concerned we're here to talk about life post-convictioon, not feel as if we're on trial all over again. This might just be my force, they're particularly negative.
All in all the judge agreed to the one change but didn't really explain why he wouldn't fully discharge it. I did hire a barrister and they explained I have no kids, I've held down my self-employed work, all annual notifications done on time, unannounced visits etc I explained being unspent for this length was relentless and achieving nothing but extra financial burden in already difficult times and unneccesary disclosures (bane of my life), but it all seemingly wasn't good enough.
I think judges are reluctant to go against what another judge has decided but I know there have been successes documented on here. As with every area, there just seems to be inconsistencies everywhere.
So I would suggest proceed with hope and caution. If your SHPO as it stands is managable for the duration, as difficult as we all know they are, things won't get worse, but anything more positive will be a huge bonus.
|
By Richie - 20 Oct 25 10:31 PM
+xHi Richie, I hope it goes well. I applied for discharge a few years ago and had similarly frustrating experience. It wasn't thrown out but the outcome wasn't great either. I echo what everyone else has said, I got a SAR and submitted all the positives, I had no breaches etc and this was 6/7 years after conviction. Have a think about what to say if you're speaking, don't make excuses or slag off police (which is so tempting) - purely be positive about yourself and dig deep into the HOW you've changed. As you can imagine a lot of people say they've changed and when it comes down to having pressure applied, haven't truly changed at all. When it came to the police, they only agreed to one change before the hearing. However, their representation in court didn't talk about post-conviction at all, he just went over the original offending and the images etc. I was surprised how negative they were and it was unhelpful because as far as we're concerned we're here to talk about life post-convictioon, not feel as if we're on trial all over again. This might just be my force, they're particularly negative. All in all the judge agreed to the one change but didn't really explain why he wouldn't fully discharge it. I did hire a barrister and they explained I have no kids, I've held down my self-employed work, all annual notifications done on time, unannounced visits etc I explained being unspent for this length was relentless and achieving nothing but extra financial burden in already difficult times and unneccesary disclosures (bane of my life), but it all seemingly wasn't good enough. I think judges are reluctant to go against what another judge has decided but I know there have been successes documented on here. As with every area, there just seems to be inconsistencies everywhere. So I would suggest proceed with hope and caution. If your SHPO as it stands is managable for the duration, as difficult as we all know they are, things won't get worse, but anything more positive will be a huge bonus.
Thank you for your supportive words.
It is not the SHPO itself that bothers me, I don't really care about having my devices monitored/checked and having to register new devices.
The big issue for me is that Conviction would be spent in March next year if I can get the SHPO discharged. At the moment having to declare my conviction creates many hurdles for me especially around running a business with my partner. It is impossible to get anyone to insure the business which leaves us open to potential risks, it also means we can't employ anyone as I can not get employers liability insurance for them which is a legal requirement. This means we are doing the jobs of around 4 people and desperately need the help. It also means our whole business has to be run from home as I can't get a business unit to run it from (insurance and background checks) which means family and work life often collides.
There are the normal things like personal insurance etc having to get higher quotes.
When I was convicted I was a different person, I was under a lot of stress I had a recent family bereavement and I was not acting like myself.
Wind on a few years and I am a different person, not under the same sort of stress and I am myself. I can talk to people about my family about my problems. There is no way I am going to return to the place that caused my offending. I have too much to lose if I offend again, I have a business I have built up and my family who forgave me once but I know a second time that is not going to happen.
I have completed all the courses they have asked me to, I have complied with every part of the registration process. I have been patient with the police even when I believe they are being unreasonable and difficult. My risk level has come down from high when I was first convicted to low now.
What is annoying about a SHPO is that it means your conviction can never be spent whilst it is active, however you can be on the SOR and your conviction is spent.
|
By punter99 - 21 Oct 25 10:37 AM
+x+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled.
My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time?
When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly.
I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you.
# It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this.
|
By Richie - 21 Oct 25 12:59 PM
+x+x+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled. My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time? When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly. I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you. # It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this.
My PPU is objecting as she claims she can't manage me without the SHPO in place. She has told me this verbally on her last visit. In her statement to the court she claims that the software monitoring on my devices is the only way she can monitor me. She misses the point (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that the monitoring software is only on my work machine and not on my personal devices and no issues have been found on these unmonitored devices in the last 3 years since they took the monitoring software off due to it not working correctly.
Personally I thought management was more than the SHPO.
Our relationship is not too bad. Very formal I find her okay to deal with ...my biggest problem on recent visits have been the people who check my devices. I have found them difficult, the last one I had was getting worked up on a reply I made on twitter . She was trying to get me to say what I had replied to and what I said....I couldn't honestly remember and seeing she had the device in front of her and knew exactly what I said it just seemed pointless. For clarity the original post and comment I made was perfectly okay.
|
By xDanx - 21 Oct 25 3:31 PM
+x+x+x+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled. My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time? When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly. I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you. # It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this. My PPU is objecting as she claims she can't manage me without the SHPO in place. She has told me this verbally on her last visit. In her statement to the court she claims that the software monitoring on my devices is the only way she can monitor me. She misses the point (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that the monitoring software is only on my work machine and not on my personal devices and no issues have been found on these unmonitored devices in the last 3 years since they took the monitoring software off due to it not working correctly. Personally I thought management was more than the SHPO. Our relationship is not too bad. Very formal I find her okay to deal with ...my biggest problem on recent visits have been the people who check my devices. I have found them difficult, the last one I had was getting worked up on a reply I made on twitter . She was trying to get me to say what I had replied to and what I said....I couldn't honestly remember and seeing she had the device in front of her and knew exactly what I said it just seemed pointless. For clarity the original post and comment I made was perfectly okay.
As Punter99 said, if you can speak to her and get her to admit to you that you pose little to no risk. Make sure you have it recorded. If the day comes you do end up in court to have your hearing and she tells you no, you are not a risk. Then tells the judge something else claiming you are of high risk, you have the recording to back you up. Along side the information you gather from the subject access request, which usually takes around a month to be forwarded to you. It would take some time to read through it all and alter parts of your original application, so I think 6 months is a decent time to send another application. But I will say, be very accurate with what information you are requesting, such as reports made about you from your PPU.
Either that or you go down the variation route, you could argue the fact she only has the monitor software on your work laptop and not your personal devices. So you could request to have the monitoring rule removed from the SHPO. Along side any other disproportionate restrictions you feel need to go.
Seeing as you are 6 years into your SHPO, you could even request to reduce the length from 10 years to 7 years. Stressing the fact you have been compliant and have had no breaches. I dare say you could likely include what happened with your original application to discharge pointing out the fact it was dismissed with out a proper hearing.
This is just my opinion, but I think your biggest selling point to have the SHPO discharged is your business. Most Judges are only interested in what change of circumstances have been made since being sentenced, in your case. You are running your own business (from home) which is struggling because of the SHPO, as you previously stated. You can not get the insurances to expand your business. Unable to employ anyone for the same reason, which therefor means. The SHPO it's self is preventing a change of circumstance by preventing your business to grow.
During my application process I had a number of court appearances, from the time I made my application to having it discharged. Took just over a year for me. This is mostly because my PPU never turned up until the Judge forced him too. The Judge was livid and actually stated in court that had I paid for my legal fees, he would have ordered reimbursement from Police.
|
By punter99 - 23 Oct 25 5:15 PM
+x+x+x+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled. My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time? When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly. I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you. # It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this. My PPU is objecting as she claims she can't manage me without the SHPO in place. She has told me this verbally on her last visit. In her statement to the court she claims that the software monitoring on my devices is the only way she can monitor me. She misses the point (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that the monitoring software is only on my work machine and not on my personal devices and no issues have been found on these unmonitored devices in the last 3 years since they took the monitoring software off due to it not working correctly. Personally I thought management was more than the SHPO. Our relationship is not too bad. Very formal I find her okay to deal with ...my biggest problem on recent visits have been the people who check my devices. I have found them difficult, the last one I had was getting worked up on a reply I made on twitter . She was trying to get me to say what I had replied to and what I said....I couldn't honestly remember and seeing she had the device in front of her and knew exactly what I said it just seemed pointless. For clarity the original post and comment I made was perfectly okay.
I agree with Danx. You have a strong case, if only you can get a judge to look at at it. The SHPO is clearly stopping you from moving on with your life.
Seems like the obvious solution is to make the PPU an offer. Tell them that you will voluntarily agree to have the monitoring software on your device, if they will withdraw their objections to your SHPO being discharged. It doesnt really matter if they agree or not, because the fact that you made the offer, shows the judge that you are addressing their concerns.
Also ask the PPU to record in their notes, that you have made the offer to them. That way, they cannot deny it later on.
How often are they visiting you? If it is once a year, that indicates they think you are low risk. Once every 6 months indicates medium risk. Doing a SAR also will tell you what they are saying about you behind your back. If anything in there is wrong, make a note of it, because it demonstrates that they do not understand your risk.
|
By Richie - 24 Oct 25 6:48 PM
+x+x+x+x+xGenerally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled. My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time? When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly. I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you. # It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this. My PPU is objecting as she claims she can't manage me without the SHPO in place. She has told me this verbally on her last visit. In her statement to the court she claims that the software monitoring on my devices is the only way she can monitor me. She misses the point (whether deliberately or unintentionally) that the monitoring software is only on my work machine and not on my personal devices and no issues have been found on these unmonitored devices in the last 3 years since they took the monitoring software off due to it not working correctly. Personally I thought management was more than the SHPO. Our relationship is not too bad. Very formal I find her okay to deal with ...my biggest problem on recent visits have been the people who check my devices. I have found them difficult, the last one I had was getting worked up on a reply I made on twitter . She was trying to get me to say what I had replied to and what I said....I couldn't honestly remember and seeing she had the device in front of her and knew exactly what I said it just seemed pointless. For clarity the original post and comment I made was perfectly okay. I agree with Danx. You have a strong case, if only you can get a judge to look at at it. The SHPO is clearly stopping you from moving on with your life. Seems like the obvious solution is to make the PPU an offer. Tell them that you will voluntarily agree to have the monitoring software on your device, if they will withdraw their objections to your SHPO being discharged. It doesnt really matter if they agree or not, because the fact that you made the offer, shows the judge that you are addressing their concerns. Also ask the PPU to record in their notes, that you have made the offer to them. That way, they cannot deny it later on. How often are they visiting you? If it is once a year, that indicates they think you are low risk. Once every 6 months indicates medium risk. Doing a SAR also will tell you what they are saying about you behind your back. If anything in there is wrong, make a note of it, because it demonstrates that they do not understand your risk.
My risk level is low as this was quoted from the police statement by the judge. My Offender Manager said I was low risk due to my compliance and because the monitoring software was in place. Failing to mention the monitoring software is only on 1 of my devices and not on the other 2. So I believe in a hearing that point could be disproved.
My visits are annual but I did have an unexpected visit shortly after putting the discharge application in. I believe this was to look on my unmonitored devices for any evidence to counter the discharge application. The excuse they used was that it was to discuss my foreign travel notification but that could have been done by phone or email.
It is a good suggestion about offering to have the monitoring software on voluntarily. Thank you.
|
By JASB - 27 Oct 25 10:33 AM
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost?
Hi
My sopo cost me £600 ish a couple of years back. Obviously I do not know the full in and outs yours is saying they have to do but does seem high.
I believe his contact details are still the same.
http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/
+44 7973953971
Good luck
|
By expatofff - 1 Nov 25 8:39 PM
My sopo was removed about 10 years ago, give or take. It cost about 800 quid back then. I can't pass the details on as the barrister who dealt with it for me is now a judge.
But, if it helps, I just got as much stuff together to show what I'd proactively done to change. That combined with my barrister arguing that I couldn't return to the UK until my sopo was removed as as soon as it would be my conviction would be spent and therefore not need to be disclosed.
It was resisted, actually two barrister ls turned up, one for the police and a CPS one. They really didn't want it to happen. My barrister was smart though. They (the opposition) argued they couldn't realistically judge my risk until I returned to the UK, so asked the judge to keep it until I returned.
The judge wasn't stupid, they had all my evidence and removed my sopo.
So I would say, just show that you've changed, what you have done and want to do with your life. They just want you to succeed at the end of the day, if you give them reason to.
|
By AB2014 - 4 Nov 25 9:10 AM
+xMy sopo was removed about 10 years ago, give or take. It cost about 800 quid back then. I can't pass the details on as the barrister who dealt with it for me is now a judge. But, if it helps, I just got as much stuff together to show what I'd proactively done to change. That combined with my barrister arguing that I couldn't return to the UK until my sopo was removed as as soon as it would be my conviction would be spent and therefore not need to be disclosed. It was resisted, actually two barrister ls turned up, one for the police and a CPS one. They really didn't want it to happen. My barrister was smart though. They (the opposition) argued they couldn't realistically judge my risk until I returned to the UK, so asked the judge to keep it until I returned. The judge wasn't stupid, they had all my evidence and removed my sopo. So I would say, just show that you've changed, what you have done and want to do with your life. They just want you to succeed at the end of the day, if you give them reason to.
Unlock has information and advice on what you might want to include in your representations on their website here. You could have a look at that to get an idea of whether you fancy doing it yourself.
|
By JASB - 4 Nov 25 4:33 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? Hi My sopo cost me £600 ish a couple of years back. Obviously I do not know the full in and outs yours is saying they have to do but does seem high. I believe his contact details are still the same. http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/ +44 7973953971 Good luck
Further to this, sorry for not including it, I only used a solicitor for the first discharge of certain conditions. The second and full discharge I undertook myself. It took a long time to present the document in a manner that the Judge actually thought I had used a solicitor; at the hearing he actually thought I was the solicitor. Truth is I used the original document as a template to show how I should reference legal aspects and took all my emotions out of my points.
Therefore believe that you can do it by yourself no matter the hurdles and time it takes to write the document. there is always others here to support you.
|
By Paul Jan - 4 Nov 25 7:16 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? Hi My sopo cost me £600 ish a couple of years back. Obviously I do not know the full in and outs yours is saying they have to do but does seem high. I believe his contact details are still the same. http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/ +44 7973953971 Good luck Further to this, sorry for not including it, I only used a solicitor for the first discharge of certain conditions. The second and full discharge I undertook myself. It took a long time to present the document in a manner that the Judge actually thought I had used a solicitor; at the hearing he actually thought I was the solicitor. Truth is I used the original document as a template to show how I should reference legal aspects and took all my emotions out of my points. Therefore believe that you can do it by yourself no matter the hurdles and time it takes to write the document. there is always others here to support you.
Would you be prepared to share parts of your document? Obviously redact anything personal. Thanks
|
By JASB - 7 Nov 25 3:28 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? Hi My sopo cost me £600 ish a couple of years back. Obviously I do not know the full in and outs yours is saying they have to do but does seem high. I believe his contact details are still the same. http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/ +44 7973953971 Good luck Further to this, sorry for not including it, I only used a solicitor for the first discharge of certain conditions. The second and full discharge I undertook myself. It took a long time to present the document in a manner that the Judge actually thought I had used a solicitor; at the hearing he actually thought I was the solicitor. Truth is I used the original document as a template to show how I should reference legal aspects and took all my emotions out of my points. Therefore believe that you can do it by yourself no matter the hurdles and time it takes to write the document. there is always others here to support you. Would you be prepared to share parts of your document? Obviously redact anything personal. Thanks
Hi I did in a previous post but over the weekend I will attempt to put a draft template ie headings, together and see how we go from there.
Have to remember that as my conditions were reduced until finally discharge, some content would refer back to those documents.
One thing I learned was that if you can make the document easy to follow, clearing linking to "references" that makes the Judge's review easier and also shows you are serious in your intent.
In the meantime I would advise you collate any "documents" that supported you together; be them from official channels ie positives from Probation, OM etc to family and friends who wrote to the Judge
|
By Richie - 9 Nov 25 4:39 PM
Just an update on my refusal.
After a complaint to the court I have now been granted a hearing. I am just waiting for a date now which the court have indicated is likely to be between December and March.
Thank you to everyone for their help and advice. I will update after the hearing with the outcome.
|
By punter99 - 10 Nov 25 10:53 AM
+xJust an update on my refusal. After a complaint to the court I have now been granted a hearing. I am just waiting for a date now which the court have indicated is likely to be between December and March. Thank you to everyone for their help and advice. I will update after the hearing with the outcome.
good luck!
|
By JASB - 11 Nov 25 3:49 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? Hi My sopo cost me £600 ish a couple of years back. Obviously I do not know the full in and outs yours is saying they have to do but does seem high. I believe his contact details are still the same. http://www.andrewstorchsolicitors.com/our-people/michael-phillips/ +44 7973953971 Good luck Further to this, sorry for not including it, I only used a solicitor for the first discharge of certain conditions. The second and full discharge I undertook myself. It took a long time to present the document in a manner that the Judge actually thought I had used a solicitor; at the hearing he actually thought I was the solicitor. Truth is I used the original document as a template to show how I should reference legal aspects and took all my emotions out of my points. Therefore believe that you can do it by yourself no matter the hurdles and time it takes to write the document. there is always others here to support you. Would you be prepared to share parts of your document? Obviously redact anything personal. Thanks
Paul, sorry for the delay but will get something posted.
|
By JASB - 16 Nov 25 3:08 PM
+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for.
Hi
Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data.
I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know.
|
By Richie - 29 Nov 25 8:15 PM
+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know.
As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press.
Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge.
My original case got no press coverage thankfully.
Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings?
|
By punter99 - 1 Dec 25 10:11 AM
+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings?
There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that.
|
By khafka - 1 Dec 25 10:20 AM
+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings?
I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing.
Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager.
|
By Richie - 3 Dec 25 6:42 PM
+x+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing. Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager.
Thanks I had a look as well and can find just one article from a few years ago about a discharge being refused. There is nothing else I can see so reporting is rare.
I suspect I will be okay. Just don't want to come all this way with moving on with my life just for my local paper to print something which sets it all back. Probably worrying over nothing.
|
By JASB - 7 Dec 25 2:42 PM
+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that.
Hi
I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that.
I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case.
One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court.
you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck
|
By Richie - 24 Jan 26 6:48 PM
+x+x+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing. Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager. Thanks I had a look as well and can find just one article from a few years ago about a discharge being refused. There is nothing else I can see so reporting is rare. I suspect I will be okay. Just don't want to come all this way with moving on with my life just for my local paper to print something which sets it all back. Probably worrying over nothing.
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.
|
By punter99 - 26 Jan 26 11:20 AM
+x+x+x+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing. Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager. Thanks I had a look as well and can find just one article from a few years ago about a discharge being refused. There is nothing else I can see so reporting is rare. I suspect I will be okay. Just don't want to come all this way with moving on with my life just for my local paper to print something which sets it all back. Probably worrying over nothing. 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.
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.
|
By xDanx - 26 Jan 26 11:38 AM
+x+x+x+x+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing. Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager. Thanks I had a look as well and can find just one article from a few years ago about a discharge being refused. There is nothing else I can see so reporting is rare. I suspect I will be okay. Just don't want to come all this way with moving on with my life just for my local paper to print something which sets it all back. Probably worrying over nothing. 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. 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.
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.
|
By JASB - 6 Feb 26 1:15 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xAs my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? I can't recall any local reports of it, even had a wee look on some local papers websites out of interest and there's nothing. Unless you're a famous person or your crime was particularly egregious then I don't think there's must interest in reporting stuff like this. Not exciting and salacious enough for the papers I'd wager. Thanks I had a look as well and can find just one article from a few years ago about a discharge being refused. There is nothing else I can see so reporting is rare. I suspect I will be okay. Just don't want to come all this way with moving on with my life just for my local paper to print something which sets it all back. Probably worrying over nothing. 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. 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. 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.
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".
|
By Richie - 19 Dec 25 1:52 PM
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that. Hi I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that. I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case. One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court. you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck
Another quick question on this. The police have said if I lose the discharge hearing they will apply to court to cover their costs.
They have given me a cost schedule. Is this usual to happen?
|
By xDanx - 19 Dec 25 2:00 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that. Hi I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that. I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case. One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court. you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck Another quick question on this. The police have said if I lose the discharge hearing they will apply to court to cover their costs. They have given me a cost schedule. Is this usual to happen?
I don't think there allowed to do that, sounds like there just trying to intimidate you.
You have every right to apply for a discharge anytime with out permission once past the 5 year mark, it is then the police's job to prove why they think your SHPO should remain.
Their costs usually get covered by the tax payer anyway, so it seems off to me that they would make threats to recover the costs from you.
|
By Richie - 19 Dec 25 3:12 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that. Hi I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that. I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case. One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court. you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck Another quick question on this. The police have said if I lose the discharge hearing they will apply to court to cover their costs. They have given me a cost schedule. Is this usual to happen? I don't think there allowed to do that, sounds like there just trying to intimidate you. You have every right to apply for a discharge anytime with out permission once past the 5 year mark, it is then the police's job to prove why they think your SHPO should remain. Their costs usually get covered by the tax payer anyway, so it seems off to me that they would make threats to recover the costs from you.
Thank You
I didn't think it sounded right. They are using a police barrister and are charging for their time to produce a bundle of evidence for the court and for them to attend court.
Part of me thinks they are unsure about winning and are hoping I will cave in at this point.
|
By JASB - 21 Dec 25 1:59 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that. Hi I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that. I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case. One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court. you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck Another quick question on this. The police have said if I lose the discharge hearing they will apply to court to cover their costs. They have given me a cost schedule. Is this usual to happen? I don't think there allowed to do that, sounds like there just trying to intimidate you. You have every right to apply for a discharge anytime with out permission once past the 5 year mark, it is then the police's job to prove why they think your SHPO should remain. Their costs usually get covered by the tax payer anyway, so it seems off to me that they would make threats to recover the costs from you. Thank You I didn't think it sounded right. They are using a police barrister and are charging for their time to produce a bundle of evidence for the court and for them to attend court. Part of me thinks they are unsure about winning and are hoping I will cave in at this point.
Hi
Sorry for my slow reply. I have never had that mentioned to me and if they have written to you, I would ensure you keep that document safe as I believe that could be classed as intimidation tactics.
I would also politely reply asking if they could provide the "law/Act or policy" that supports that statement.
The only come back I have heard of (and I cant remember where) is that if you fail then they can reset the 5 years; but I think that is just to stop time wasters.
If you have the supporting evidence for your discharge request then stand strong no matter what.
|
By Richie - 21 Dec 25 5:33 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Hi Hopefully you will find the attached of some use. I'm sure you will be able to format it to your style as some may of been lost in my removal of hopefully all my personal data. I'm sure you will get the approach I undertook but if questions just let me know. As my hearing approaches the one thing I am worried about is the press. Searching for other SHPO discharge cases I can only find one single press article for a SHPO discharge. My original case got no press coverage thankfully. Does anyone known if the press are interested in these type of hearings? There does not appear to be much press interest. You could always ask for it to be heard in chambers, but unless it is a straight forward situation of the SHPO being for the wrong length of time, the judge probably won't agree to that. Hi I am afraid the perception of requesting a "hearing in chambers" is becoming invalid in many Courts. I included in my SOPO discharge request (2023) that it be heard in that manner and was informed that the "Courts" (forgot the term actually used) no longer allows that. I discussed it with the Courts administration and they basically assured me that unless it was relevant to a national paper front page story, the press does not report or even go to the hearing. This was proved to be the case. One word of advise if I may. Do go smartly dressed and appear confident in your manner. Every hearing I have done this and was never shown any interest by "photographers" : in fact the Court staff of the day and even the Judge thought I was a solicitor. I represented myself and they all asked me directly if the the "applicant" was going to appear. In also presents a good image to the Judge that you respect them and their Court. you have got this far so stay confident in your manner and your case. Good luck Another quick question on this. The police have said if I lose the discharge hearing they will apply to court to cover their costs. They have given me a cost schedule. Is this usual to happen? I don't think there allowed to do that, sounds like there just trying to intimidate you. You have every right to apply for a discharge anytime with out permission once past the 5 year mark, it is then the police's job to prove why they think your SHPO should remain. Their costs usually get covered by the tax payer anyway, so it seems off to me that they would make threats to recover the costs from you. Thank You I didn't think it sounded right. They are using a police barrister and are charging for their time to produce a bundle of evidence for the court and for them to attend court. Part of me thinks they are unsure about winning and are hoping I will cave in at this point. Hi Sorry for my slow reply. I have never had that mentioned to me and if they have written to you, I would ensure you keep that document safe as I believe that could be classed as intimidation tactics. I would also politely reply asking if they could provide the "law/Act or policy" that supports that statement. The only come back I have heard of (and I cant remember where) is that if you fail then they can reset the 5 years; but I think that is just to stop time wasters. If you have the supporting evidence for your discharge request then stand strong no matter what.
On checking under CPR44 the respondent can apply to the court to recover their legal costs. There is a minimum notice period they have to give.
The notice period they have given me was the minimal notice period possible. Whether they have intended to do this all along or they have only just decided it at the last minute I dont know.
It has now been over 6 months since I applied for a discharge and this is the first mention of costs.
Obviously the costs are only payable if the discharge is refused, I have a strong case but my main worry is getting that across in court. I have provided the court and police with written evidence to back up my case I just hope it gets read.
They have also only just disclosed evidence and statements they have had for 6 months at the same time. I have asked for copies of these since of the start of November when I first knew they existed.
I think a lot of the tactics used are normal for solicitors. Perhaps I was being a bit naive at the start of this and thinking that it was just me and my PPU involved in the hearing.
|
By Evan Davis - 22 Dec 25 11:37 AM
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
The general principle is that a Judge should not award costs if the Applicant acted in 'good faith' and/or if the variation application was "reasonable", even if unsuccessful.
This does very much seem like a "scare" tactic from the Police - I wouldn't worry overly about this. Do make sure you respectfully highlight to the Judge at your application your opposition to costs being awarded.
|
By Richie - 22 Dec 25 1:55 PM
+xOrdinarily 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
The general principle is that a Judge should not award costs if the Applicant acted in 'good faith' and/or if the variation application was "reasonable", even if unsuccessful.
This does very much seem like a "scare" tactic from the Police - I wouldn't worry overly about this. Do make sure you respectfully highlight to the Judge at your application your opposition to costs being awarded.
Thanks Evan
None of that applies to me. I will update everyone with the outcome of the hearing when it has occurred.
|
By Richie - 16 Oct 25 10:14 PM
I have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments.
The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action.
Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application.
Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing.
The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life.
I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for.
|
|