|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
Hi
I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention.
I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR.
Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others.
I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong.
It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed.
Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought.
Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice.
However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name!
Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Monkos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 81,
Visits: 415
|
+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 298,
Visits: 3.7K
|
+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. You'd be surprised at what constitutes a "local celebrity". I was offered the chance to get my order reduced but I elected not to as it had no effect on the time limit for spent conviction and I would have to appear in open court. Relying on the pressures on local papers' ability to pay journalists to cover court cases is a risky endeavour and one I wasn't willing to take!
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent', because of the SHPO rather than the sentence, and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent' and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors. It might not be in open court. In theory, the judge could hear it in chambers, which would exclude the public and the press.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent' and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors. It might not be in open court. In theory, the judge could hear it in chambers, which would exclude the public and the press. Hi AB2014 Always a pleasure to look at your replies. The term you are looking for is 'be placed before His Honour the Judge ex parte for a decision to be made' which I quoted in my application as that is how it was handled in my first (and successful) amendment application. The issue is that the Court Judges previously had different opinions on how applications were to be heard and so had decided to hear all applications in open court so media / public could be present.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent' and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors. Hi Good luck with your application. Though I was reluctant to state the Court I feel I must to assist others who have to apply to the same court. My application was to Derby Crown Court. I hope all have good luck in there application and for clarity, I will be applying again once I have the support of my PPU and can apply to remove my SOR requirement at the same time.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Neal
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8,
Visits: 96
|
+x+x+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent' and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors. Hi Good luck with your application. Though I was reluctant to state the Court I feel I must to assist others who have to apply to the same court. My application was to Derby Crown Court. I hope all have good luck in there application and for clarity, I will be applying again once I have the support of my PPU and can apply to remove my SOR requirement at the same time. Hi I would also like to wish you good luck I was given 18 months for indecent images in 2013 But on the day of sentencing a hand written SOPO application was made in court my barrister was also a part time judge but did not think to object or advise me that this was not in line with SOPO rules, also for a purely internet offence the SOPO contained restrictions on unsupervised child contact. After going to prison I requested a copy of my SOPO but nobody seemed to be able to provide one. On release on licence I reported to my PO and was told I had to comply with my SOPO, I then asked for a copy of it and she was amazed I had not been given it. After about two weeks they managed to find it and it was indefinite and had the child contact clause.
Of course by now it was too late to appeal it, after about three years I decided to take it back to court and hired a firm of solicitors and a barrister who all agreed it was wrong and should be for 10 years and not contain the child contact clause. I went back to court and the judge said he was inclined to grant the requested changes. I had changed police areas on release from prison and I had approached my PPO and she had provided a letter saying they had no objection. However in court the CPU and Police from the area where I committed my offence objected and finally the judge said that this was effectively an appeal out of time and he could not authorise it.
Oh well neither the SOR or SOPO conditions present any great problem but I would like to get the SOPO made to comply with the SOR so that they will both end in three years. I am thinking of taking this back to court again by myself as I can not afford another barrister. I have changed police areas again, I have asked my new PPU officer and she does not object. Am I right in thinking that this time around my original police area and CPU cannot object?
|
|
|
|
|
Harmless
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110,
Visits: 391
|
+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. One never quite relinquishes one's old name. One gains a name. To the police one has an AKA. Ask, via your lawyer, to be treated under your old name.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xHi I have written other articles on removing SOPO conditions and the process I have followed but my most recent application created an adverse scenario I thought I would mention. I am past the 5 year benchmark but still seek to gain the support of my PPU in my applications to remove my final SOPO conditions in readiness to apply to be removed from the SOR. Though the PPU wrote negative remarks concerning 2 conditions; the words used actually contradicted the Judges and CPS sentencing comments that are on record but that is for another day, they did support the removal of others. I then applied to the Court to have the "PPU approved" conditions removed expecting that as previously had happened it would be a "admin" task so no appearance. I was wrong. It seems that Judges at various Courts have agreed that; even PPU approved, applications need the individual to appear in open Court with no reporting restrictions imposed. Now you may wonder were my words are going and I will now address that thought. Like many of us ex-offenders we have changed our names to protect both our families and ourselves and go to great lengths to maintain this protection. Given this is also advised by Probation it is common practice. However what is the point of all that effort when a Court requires you to attend open Court with the high possibility of the press being in attendance to report and so disclose your new name! Though I am determined not to be deterred in my objectives and not feel sorry for myself, I have to express my sorrow and dismay at today's "society" which takes every opportunity to impede the ability of someone to demonstrate rehabilitation and deny integration back into society. The chances of your case being interesting enough to warrant court reporters to write about it is low though isn't it? Unless you're a recognisable celebrity. The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives, it's a race to the bottom. In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't. I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent' and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors. Hi Good luck with your application. Though I was reluctant to state the Court I feel I must to assist others who have to apply to the same court. My application was to Derby Crown Court. I hope all have good luck in there application and for clarity, I will be applying again once I have the support of my PPU and can apply to remove my SOR requirement at the same time. Hi I would also like to wish you good luck I was given 18 months for indecent images in 2013 But on the day of sentencing a hand written SOPO application was made in court my barrister was also a part time judge but did not think to object or advise me that this was not in line with SOPO rules, also for a purely internet offence the SOPO contained restrictions on unsupervised child contact. After going to prison I requested a copy of my SOPO but nobody seemed to be able to provide one. On release on licence I reported to my PO and was told I had to comply with my SOPO, I then asked for a copy of it and she was amazed I had not been given it. After about two weeks they managed to find it and it was indefinite and had the child contact clause.
Of course by now it was too late to appeal it, after about three years I decided to take it back to court and hired a firm of solicitors and a barrister who all agreed it was wrong and should be for 10 years and not contain the child contact clause. I went back to court and the judge said he was inclined to grant the requested changes. I had changed police areas on release from prison and I had approached my PPO and she had provided a letter saying they had no objection. However in court the CPU and Police from the area where I committed my offence objected and finally the judge said that this was effectively an appeal out of time and he could not authorise it.
Oh well neither the SOR or SOPO conditions present any great problem but I would like to get the SOPO made to comply with the SOR so that they will both end in three years. I am thinking of taking this back to court again by myself as I can not afford another barrister. I have changed police areas again, I have asked my new PPU officer and she does not object. Am I right in thinking that this time around my original police area and CPU cannot object?
Hi first good luck with your application. I hope I have not misunderstood but you know you have to have the SOPO conditions removed before you can apply to be removed from the SOR? I'm not sure of the duration of your sopo / sor but I read another case where the sopo was 10 years / sor 5 years (or something like that) and so SOR could not end. Your original PPU and Court do take advice from your current PPU but I am not sure you could have details in court under your old name as all Police records and Courts records will have been changed to your new name. Please let me know how you get one and if I am right or wrong.
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.
|
|
|
|