|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAnyone 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 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 ...... Hi Please see my article of "how do you prove you are a low risk". Just a bit of a back ground to show relevance follows sorry.. lol In brief I am a first offender (now ex-offender), a low risk and extremely unlikely to reoffend, very rarely visited and most of my SOPO conditions been removed. I have an issue removing the final 2 which no one can qualify why I have them. the only response I receive is "prove you are not a risk", but will not tell or guide me how I am to do this. Relevance: I mention this because I would advise you to research the countries embassy sites, keep a record of events and documents rising from your research/discussions and ask the PPU what notification actions they will take. I lost money on a trip I was going on and could not claim it back. My only happiness was proving the PPU had not been truthful in their actions to a Judge. Good luck and hopefully your journeys will go past the UK's borders.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Harmless
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110,
Visits: 391
|
+xHere's the guidance from the UK College of Policing manual. Three specific comments: 1. The diffusion system can be used to notify a specific country rather than a Green Notice that is available to all countries Hang on - so a Green Notice, by its nature, is sent to all countries in the system?
|
|
|
|
|
Harmless
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110,
Visits: 391
|
+xAnyone any knowledge of travelling into China then onto North Korea whilst on SOR I find it pretty funny that SOs are fleeing to North Korea in order to feel free :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Yankee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 232,
Visits: 994
|
Here's the guidance from the UK College of Policing manual. Three specific comments: 1. The diffusion system can be used to notify a specific country rather than a Green Notice that is available to all countries 2. Even for low risk offenders, if they are travelling to a high risk country that may be a factor that could trigger a notice 3. For SISII (within EU), anyone on the SOR is automatically classed as 'high risk' on ViSOR and SIS alterts are issued as standard. In theory, outside the EU a risk assessment should be done on an individual basis and the decision to use notices/diffusions should be proportionate i.e everyone on SOR isn't automatically classified as high risk by their PPU for non-EU travel. Publication of green notices and diffusions regarding travelling sexual offendersHome Office Circular 20/2001 sets out amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 which allow more intrusive management of sex offenders, including notification of foreign travel.A Green Notice is used for non-Schengen countries to provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries. The decision to use these are on a case by case basis.The criteria for circulation of green notices include: - For very high and high-risk sexual offenders – if the local force receives notification of foreign travel and considers dissemination of this information to other countries necessary and proportionate, they can submit a green notice application to the UK NCB accompanied by a form C risk assessment. The UK INTERPOL NCB will quality assure both documents before disseminating through INTERPOL channels, if appropriate.
- For medium-risk offenders – these are dealt with by way of diffusion where appropriate, or a green notice. Each will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
- For low-risk offenders – it is not usual practice to notify the country of destination or INTERPOL unless there is specific intelligence to warrant a diffusion or green notice, eg, the individual may be travelling to a high-risk country.
The final decision in relation to circulating INTERPOL diffusions or colour notices sits with the NCB which, in liaison with the subject’s offender manager and the force’s ILO, consider which notification should be used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+xthey 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. Green notices can only be used where there is an active investigation ongoing into suspected crimes in progress. Not just because someone is on the SOR. Interpol's own information on Green Notices is that they are "to provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries." As you say, a notice shouldn't be issued just because someone is on the SOR, but people's experience is that this still happens in some cases. They don't necessarily need a good reason, they just need a decent excuse, and they may well rely on people being reluctant to take legal action over it. If they go for a judicial review, there is every chance that the judgement will be posted to one of the legal databases, which will make sure they are on Google. A Green Notice should be the result of a risk assessment, but the risk assessed isn't always the risk of an offence being committed; it might well be the risk of trouble if they don't issue a Green Notice and something happens, whatever the risk of that actually is.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Monkos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 81,
Visits: 415
|
+x+x+x+xthey 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. Green notices can only be used where there is an active investigation ongoing into suspected crimes in progress. Not just because someone is on the SOR.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+xthey 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)
|
|
|
|
|
Monkos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 81,
Visits: 415
|
+x+xthey 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.
|
|
|
|
|
BenS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 301,
Visits: 2.9K
|
+xthey 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Monkos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 81,
Visits: 415
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAnyone 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 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.
|
|
|
|