Anyone any knowledge of travelling into China then onto North Korea whilst on SOR

Isn't the question even simpler - anyone got any knowledge of travelling to North Korea, period??

Hi Cory and Yankee

Most people travelling to China will require a visa. The visa application form asks

'Do you have any criminal record in China or any other country'?

There is very little guidance as to what the Chinese consider you should disclose. The Embassy states that disclosure of a conviction would not automatically stop you from getting a visa but that you should answer the question honestly so that you do not risk being turned away on arrival at the border or expelled after entry. 

We have little information about travel to North Korea. However offences that would be considered trivial in other countries can incur really severe penalties in North Korea, particularly those which the authorities deem to be disrespectful towards the North Korean leadership or government. 

The other thing to consider if you are travelling whilst on the SOR is that your passport is likely to be 'flagged' which will alert authorities the authorities in China and North Korea that you have been cautioned or convicted of a sexual offence. A caller to our helpline recently was given permission by his PPU officer to travel to the Philippines but was immediately put back on a flight to the UK by immigration in the Philippines.

Hope this helps.

Debs  





Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

Debs - the police are meant to take a risk based approach when determining whether to notify a foreign country (outside the EU) if a traveller is on the SOR (or ViSOR for other violet offences). If they decide to notify, it is meant to be via an Interpol green notice, although there is some anecdotal evidence of embassy-to-embassy sharing of intel for serious offenders. For his passport to be flagged in the Philippines, it must have been recorded on the Philippines own watch list and the information must have come from another source. The fact that he needed permission from his PPU officer implies he had other travel restrictions or was under a SOPO? That would suggest a different risk category.  There are plenty of positive examples in other threads on the forums of people on the SOR travelling without a problem to other non-EU countries - this implies they are either low risk and no information shared about them, or Interpol notices/information shared but simply not updated on the host countries' border systems.

No problem going to China with a visa as long as you don't tick the disclose convitcion box on the application form - and I think it's perfectly reasonable not to disclose when doing so could you put at risk in such a country. Lawyers, PPUs and the people behind Unlock might never advise you not to disclose as they'd be in a bit of trouble if they did. But really the advise should be, don't disclose if there's no justifiable reason to.

OK if you don't have to notify.  If you do, it depends on the attitude of your PPU and whether they issue a green notice or not .....  The dilemma is that part of your PPU risk assessment includes evidence that you are committed to rehabilitation. Notifying them you are going to travel to a country where they know you will be asked about criminal records implies that you are prepared to play loose with the truth ...... 

they have to inform you in advance if they are going to do that, which then gives you the choice not to go. 

As myself and others have mentioned on other threads, it would be great to know the source of this piece of information, as it is totally against all other information and experiences we have come across.

As far as I know (and experience), the PPU does not have to tell you if you have a green notice, and if you ask them directly they will dodge the question or refuse to answer, as is their right. I would be delighted to be corrected on this but have yet to find anything that would suggest otherwise.

Lawyers with expertise in privacy laws and SOR/SOPO/SHAPO requirements provide that information. Confirmed by my PPU. The rules are this:

If they intend to tell the country you are travelling to, they must tell you first, same as with any other disclosure, giving you the option to change your mind about going.
If they intend to stop you going, they must apply to the court. This has only ever been done once successfully.
If they apply a green notice, they must have a damn good reason to think you're a threat. The act of filling out the travel notification form causes any notices to be turned OFF for the duration of your travel except in the UK systems, which get flagged to record and log your exit/entry.

This comes back to the old conflict between public protection and the individual's right to privacy. There are probably many offences for which the public would side with the individual, and there are some offences where there is no public sympathy at all. I think we know what I'm talking about. We have people on here who have filled in the notification and still had a Green Notice issued. Issuing a Green Notice does not stop people leaving the country, but if is very effective at preventing people being admitted to non-EU countries. I'm guessing that if there is supposed to be some sort of legal protection, they're relying on the embarrassment factor and people not wanting the publicity of going to court over it. As for PPU refusing to answer questions about Green Notices, the Data Protection Act does specifically exclude the detection and prevention of crime.

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

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)