By punter99 - 24 Aug 26 11:17 AM
The latest gimmick from the MoJ. It seems to be marketed as the latest way to punish SO who have been released from prison, by restricting their movements to just a few miles from their home address. We already have exclusion zones, and SHPOs which include restrictions on contact, so why they need this extra punishment is unclear, apart from the obvious reason, which is to make prison releases more palatable to the public and the Daily Mail.
I see big problems with it, partly the legal and human rights issues, but mainly the practical ones. It requires to probation to sit down with a map and figure out where the offender can go to do all the essential things like shopping and going to the hospital, but without coming into contact with their victims. If there is only one hospital or supermarket in the area, then extra licence conditions would have to be added so that the offender can only go there at certain times of the day.
So really, you would need to know from the victims, their entire daily schedule of movements, in advance, and on a daily basis, to make it work properly. I cannot see any probation officer having the time to find all that out. I predict that these orders will be like the existing foreign travel orders that in theory can be used to stop SO from going abroad, but which in practice are almost never used.
Although there is another possibility, which is that over zealous PPU will try to incorporate an exclusion zone into someones SHPO unofficially, like they do with other things like contact rules. The guidance says exclusion zones must be "necessary and proportionate". We know that wording very well, because SHPOs are supposed to be "necessary and proportionate" too. It is just that this vague legal language can be interpreted in any way that the police choose.
But there is some good news. Restriction zones can only be used for high and very high risk offenders. They should not apply to most SO, who are low and medium risk. However, this also means that they would not apply to people like Simon Levy for example. He was only classified as medium risk, due to him having one eye and he was not even given an SHPO!! As usual with these court orders, the really dangerous people somehow slip through the net and only the low risk offenders are inconvenienced and punished.
|
By JASB - 24 Aug 26 7:26 PM
Hi
This reminds me of the default restriction of not going within 50 yards of a park or school. In many areas it was not possible to do that never mind monitoring it so what is the point.
"so why they need this extra punishment is unclear".
They say crime does not pay! in some opinions it does especially for newspaper owners, solicitors and of course MP's!
|
|