Earlier on this thread, someone posted that SIS II alerts are issued automatically as a matter of procedure, as an Article 36(2) alert. When I checked back through the document references, I found that the Article 36(2) alert is on the same basis as the Interpol Green Notice, which is that the person who is the subject of the notice is either involved in crime or travelling with the intention of committing crimes. Having said that, some forces seem to do that, while others issue notices for all travel notifications. According to EC information here, these alerts are for discreet or specific checks. I have heard of one check at French border control at St.Pancras being done at gunpoint, before the officer read the full text of the alert. Something to do with the alert codes suggesting the poor guy was missing and wanted, apparently.

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

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)

I am not sure (I would like to share experiences) that a SIS alert is automatically sent upon notifying a foreign travel. On similar forum someone said that it depends that the alert is sent depending on the sentence (i.e. custodial/suspended), its length, previous convictions etc.

On a website (College of Policing) I have found the following : ".....Decisions to use Interpol notices (and SIS II alerts) are taken following national guidance and on a case by case basis according to risk...."  By reading that it seems that even SIS alerts are issued on a case by case basis. 

My personal experience is limited. I traveled to Holland and Italy but my passport was not scanned and once to Ireland where my passport was scanned but no questions were asked.
I would like to know your opinion and/or personal experiences.

The devil will be in the detail. If the government continues to insist it won't accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, then access to SISII won't happen and it will still be via Interpol, whatever the deal is. Hopefully, the combination of the police, other law enforcement agencies and the Home Secretary will lead to us having access to SISII, which would be best for everyone.

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

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)

Well the news this morning is looking a little more reassuring. A lot of MPs determined to legally block no deal from happening, and otherwise perhaps a delay in leaving. Or even if we do leave on 29 March but with a deal, hopefully the SISII alerts would continue roughly as now, with no need for Interpol to get involved.

Sadly, I'm not sure the courts would strike down a de facto travel ban on the grounds of human rights. Don't forget the other Supreme Court case, where the court upheld the police's right to disclose that someone had been acquitted of a sexual offence, as safeguarding the public is more important than an individual's human rights. Something like "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." Maybe a Star Trek fan can confirm or correct the quotation, but life is resembling art again. 

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

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)

It also raises the question whether a risk based approach will continue to be applied - all notifications are recorded on SISII as there is no incentive for the PPU's to not do so. We have the right to travel in the EU and they are just alerts for discreet checks so they won't take any time to risk assess. Interpol is different - it takes more time and resources hence the risk based approach and only issuing green notices for higher risk cases.

If that were to change and notices are issued by default, we would end up with a de facto travel ban. I suspect that could be challenged through the courts (e.g. restriction of trade, human rights,...) although would take an extremely long time.

Given all the uncertainty around Brexit, however, I wouldn't be losing sleep about this at the moment - still way too many scenarios to unfold before we get to the worse case scenario

Does this mean that RSOs will have a de facto international travel ban?

What about people who in future are no longer on the SOR but were on it post-Brexit and notified foreign travel which went through Interpol? Would the green notice be removed automatically once the time on the SOR is over, like SISII alerts currently are?

Just for full clarity I'll include the quote from Javid's letter:

"... I can reassure you that our operational agencies are making preperations to ensure UK-issued information which woul today go out through SIS II will be issued via Interpol channels."

This isn't clear (probably quite intentionally) on which information would be sent this way but it does give an idea to the government's leaning.

Yes that would be very bad indeed.

That's bad news. At present, I can travel anywhere outside the EU without a problem (US excepted) as the PPU do a risk assessment before issuing a green notice, which means for anyone low risk (like myself) no notice is issued.

If we leave with no deal and this approach is taken, it means a green notice whenever you travel to Europe which will then flag up on all the other countries databases outside the EU (depending how much effort they make to update their systems with interpol notices)