|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xpunter99 Speaking more on the whole 'making, possession', I dug through some of the emails I had sent my solicitor and he included a pdf file which was a guideline on sexual offences. Same file can be found here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sexual-offences-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf. It states the following: "Production includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing"
I then found this online by the CPS dated from 2018 https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children which in my view contradicts what is said in the above guidelines ."Opening an attachment to an email containing an image"
"Downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen"
This was also quite an interesting read which I will also include http://www.dilloway.co.uk/definition-of-indecent-image-offences.htmlIn short, the courts are simply ignoring their own guidelines so that people get longer convictions because those who are issued with 'making' make better headlines which in turn, makes the public think the offence is more serious than it actually is. Followed by inconsistent restrictions given via SOPO / SHPO which are only place for individuals to fail. Moving on to my PPU, I am under no orders to have any monitoring software installed, and even if it was offered to me now I will not be accepting it. I am happy to comply with his instructions until I have all the information from impartial and legal advice which will later be challenged. I respect your statement about giving up article 8 if you allow it to be installed. However if one thing has been proven time and time again is that the police will use everything they can against you. Because in their eyes everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I did question my SHPO with the barrister however he completely failed to take any notes and pretty much skipped 80% of the issues I had. Ultimately the judge threw out his arguments and I was forced to have them imposed on me. In all honesty my head was not in the right place at the time and had I known what I know now the out come would of been completely different. But I suppose that is how certain cases are won, give as less defense to defendants as possible and cause panic and fear for better results. On the making point, you are right that it sounds worse, to the public, but you don't get a longer sentence for making a copy by downloading. Making, in that sense, is treated as possession, for sentencing purposes. I agree that sentencing guidelines are written to imply that making is the same as production and it's true that production is treated as a much worse offence than possession. But the judges all know that making a copy is to be treated as possession, when they pass sentence. My barrister made exactly that point, to the judge, just to remind him. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you seem very aggreived. Angry at your legal team, the police, the law etc. I felt much the same emotions, after being arrested and convicted. I think it was really just anger at myself, for getting caught. Those feelings will pass, with time. The stress of the whole process, the trauma of the arrest, the fear I felt while waiting for sentencing, the intrusive visits from PPU etc. is immense and like you, my head wasn't in the right place, a lot of the time. My emotions were all over the place and from a mental health perspective, the effects are a lot like PTSD. You feel like the whole world is against you. But there are people on your side, like the guys on this forum for example. I wish you all the best, for the future. Take care. I find it interesting that your barrister reminded the judge of the guidelines regarding, mine did nothing of the sort. I had no idea until I started doing my own research which I have shared. you are right in thinking that I am aggrieved and angry not only at my solicitor / police, but the whole system. I am angry because police have twisted and reworded reports to fit their narrative, claimed all of my devices tested positive which I know to be untrue, but refuse to give me details. They claim my offence dates back 10+years which is also untrue plus impossible and has fallen on deaf ears. My solicitor despite many requests never informed me or allowed me any chance to review and dispute evidence later claiming it would be illegal, he simply told me to plead guilty and I would not go to prison which I did when brought to Magistrates. Even to this day I have little knowledge or understanding of what I have pleaded guilty to and they are still refusing to give me this information. I argued the charge of making with solicitor and said it should be possession but did nothing to change or even understand this. In short everyone I was involved with in my case have simply not done their jobs and I have felt for some years mistreated and a victim of negligence. I have struggled with my mental health over the years even before all this started, it is difficult to let go of how all this has made me feel but I can say I am using those feelings in a positive way to keep strong and fight for what I know is wrong. Hi xDanx I wonder if you could give a bit more detail about your situation? You can tell me to mind my own business, if you want. I won't be offended. What sentence did you actually get? Do you think it's unfair that you were given an SHPO at all, or is just that you think some of it's terms are disproportionate to the offence? Do you deny the offence completely? In other words, are you saying that you never had any illegal images, on any of your devices, at any time? Thanks In terms of my situation are you asking for details which resulted in my arrest and offence? As in what I did and why? Its difficult to talk about as at this time I was already heavily depressed and at times felt suicidal due to many issues I was facing. I don't want to make the whole mental health excuse either, but in short I was simply to stupid at the time to understand what I was getting myself involved in online and what was being downloaded. I was sentenced to 10 months suspended for 2 years for making of indecent images, given a community order where I had to complete rehabilitation program for 30 days. I think given the offence I understand a SHPO would need to be in place, but I do feel I have been unfairly treated in terms of being kept in the dark of my legal rights and do feel the conditions are disproportionate to my offence. I do not deny my offence entirely, I accept it being possible things that I had downloaded had the potential of being illegal, but as far as I was aware I had only kept what I thought was adult material. But that is as far as my offence goes, there is no evidence of distribution, nor any evidence that I have committed any physical harm to any person. So why have I been given the wrong charge and disproportionate conditions? Hi xdanx i think we all understand, we have all been there, i guess you were charged with possession and also making, under the SOA making refers to downloading of indecent images, not taking. when your in court it is the job of the cps on behalf of the public to show you for the worst that you are and present the evidence in that way. It is the job of your defence counsel to counter those arguments and to show you are not the bad person that the cps made out and that you have had issues. In regards to the shpo i think i have already answered this in another post, and if there are items on yours that current case law state should not then you need to apply to haver it varied, and you will need to present evidence to the judge as to why the identified points should not be there. stay safe As far as I am aware, I was charged for making, but based on how I am being treated I feel I am being charged for further offences in which are not outlined in any of the paper work. Social services however seem to think I am guilty of everything including taking, permitting to take, distribution which there is no evidence of and accuse me of "minimizing" my convictions when I correct them. They say this information was given to them "verbally" by a police officer who attended a meeting with them and there is no actual written document. So in all honesty, I really am not sure what I am even guilty of anymore because the only thing these services are good at is keeping me in the dark to turn me into a statistic. I will be looking into my SHPO and having it varied but I am half tempted to explore an appeal of my sentence. Problem is locally everyone I have spoke to about these issues simply do not care and do not know how to do their jobs and have turned me away. Hi Dan, if you have been found guilty in court, then you would have been given a document confirming what offences you are guilty of and the sentence imposed. THis would also show on your SHPO paperwork As a recently convicted sex offender you will have social services crawling all over you if you have access to children under the age of 18yrs of age. All they have to go on is the report they receive from the court and from MAPPA. (As a convicted sex offender you will be known to your local MAPPA team, this team consists of a number of agencies including the police, social services, the local council, local housing rep etc and also a lay member of the public. it is your job to show social services that you are not a risk You might find these useful to read https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/mappa/https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/information-relationships-children-dealing-social-services/there is a lot to take in i understand that, and all that have messaged you on here have been in your shoes, i have read over a number of the posts you have made, and please dont take this the wrong way, there is no ill intent, but the sooner you start to accept the conviction and the sentence (Suspended) (Your lucky in that regards i got three years prison back in 2007) the better this will start to work out. Having just been convicted you have a lot of work to do to prove to these people that you are not a risk, and you will find it a lot lot easier to work with instead of against them, as working against them they will just see a person that is not willing to address his offending and change, dont get me wrong dont let them take you for a ride, know your rights and what is and not allowed but as time goes on it does get easier. We have all been there As far as I can see from the paper work it states "making indecent photograhs x3" I have no idea why it says x3 so maybe someone could help explain that? I mentioned before I had already pleaded guilty at magistrates. I was advised to make my plea but given very little information on what I was even pleading guilty too. I will take a look at those links you provided tomorrow, I think I have read them briefly before but not read it enough to fully understand it. Hopefully it will help me uncover some more information as to why a lot of information is being inaccurately recorded. I take no ill intent from your last points as it is good advice to simply accept things as they are to help move forward, unfortunately I am not one to give up so easily. If I know there is a problem which needs addressing which I think I have explained in enough detail, then I must fight for what I believe in and get whats incorrect corrected. I agree that if something needs fighting for then you fight for it especially if you are with in your rights making x3 means that you were charged and found guilty of three counts of making indecent images of children under the SOA, this means that they would have taken three specimen of the images you had and charged you on those, that’s how it normally works where you not found guilty of possession as well ? I do not believe so, it only states making.
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 455,
Visits: 5.5K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xpunter99 Speaking more on the whole 'making, possession', I dug through some of the emails I had sent my solicitor and he included a pdf file which was a guideline on sexual offences. Same file can be found here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sexual-offences-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf. It states the following: "Production includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing"
I then found this online by the CPS dated from 2018 https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children which in my view contradicts what is said in the above guidelines ."Opening an attachment to an email containing an image"
"Downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen"
This was also quite an interesting read which I will also include http://www.dilloway.co.uk/definition-of-indecent-image-offences.htmlIn short, the courts are simply ignoring their own guidelines so that people get longer convictions because those who are issued with 'making' make better headlines which in turn, makes the public think the offence is more serious than it actually is. Followed by inconsistent restrictions given via SOPO / SHPO which are only place for individuals to fail. Moving on to my PPU, I am under no orders to have any monitoring software installed, and even if it was offered to me now I will not be accepting it. I am happy to comply with his instructions until I have all the information from impartial and legal advice which will later be challenged. I respect your statement about giving up article 8 if you allow it to be installed. However if one thing has been proven time and time again is that the police will use everything they can against you. Because in their eyes everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I did question my SHPO with the barrister however he completely failed to take any notes and pretty much skipped 80% of the issues I had. Ultimately the judge threw out his arguments and I was forced to have them imposed on me. In all honesty my head was not in the right place at the time and had I known what I know now the out come would of been completely different. But I suppose that is how certain cases are won, give as less defense to defendants as possible and cause panic and fear for better results. On the making point, you are right that it sounds worse, to the public, but you don't get a longer sentence for making a copy by downloading. Making, in that sense, is treated as possession, for sentencing purposes. I agree that sentencing guidelines are written to imply that making is the same as production and it's true that production is treated as a much worse offence than possession. But the judges all know that making a copy is to be treated as possession, when they pass sentence. My barrister made exactly that point, to the judge, just to remind him. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you seem very aggreived. Angry at your legal team, the police, the law etc. I felt much the same emotions, after being arrested and convicted. I think it was really just anger at myself, for getting caught. Those feelings will pass, with time. The stress of the whole process, the trauma of the arrest, the fear I felt while waiting for sentencing, the intrusive visits from PPU etc. is immense and like you, my head wasn't in the right place, a lot of the time. My emotions were all over the place and from a mental health perspective, the effects are a lot like PTSD. You feel like the whole world is against you. But there are people on your side, like the guys on this forum for example. I wish you all the best, for the future. Take care. I find it interesting that your barrister reminded the judge of the guidelines regarding, mine did nothing of the sort. I had no idea until I started doing my own research which I have shared. you are right in thinking that I am aggrieved and angry not only at my solicitor / police, but the whole system. I am angry because police have twisted and reworded reports to fit their narrative, claimed all of my devices tested positive which I know to be untrue, but refuse to give me details. They claim my offence dates back 10+years which is also untrue plus impossible and has fallen on deaf ears. My solicitor despite many requests never informed me or allowed me any chance to review and dispute evidence later claiming it would be illegal, he simply told me to plead guilty and I would not go to prison which I did when brought to Magistrates. Even to this day I have little knowledge or understanding of what I have pleaded guilty to and they are still refusing to give me this information. I argued the charge of making with solicitor and said it should be possession but did nothing to change or even understand this. In short everyone I was involved with in my case have simply not done their jobs and I have felt for some years mistreated and a victim of negligence. I have struggled with my mental health over the years even before all this started, it is difficult to let go of how all this has made me feel but I can say I am using those feelings in a positive way to keep strong and fight for what I know is wrong. Hi xDanx I wonder if you could give a bit more detail about your situation? You can tell me to mind my own business, if you want. I won't be offended. What sentence did you actually get? Do you think it's unfair that you were given an SHPO at all, or is just that you think some of it's terms are disproportionate to the offence? Do you deny the offence completely? In other words, are you saying that you never had any illegal images, on any of your devices, at any time? Thanks In terms of my situation are you asking for details which resulted in my arrest and offence? As in what I did and why? Its difficult to talk about as at this time I was already heavily depressed and at times felt suicidal due to many issues I was facing. I don't want to make the whole mental health excuse either, but in short I was simply to stupid at the time to understand what I was getting myself involved in online and what was being downloaded. I was sentenced to 10 months suspended for 2 years for making of indecent images, given a community order where I had to complete rehabilitation program for 30 days. I think given the offence I understand a SHPO would need to be in place, but I do feel I have been unfairly treated in terms of being kept in the dark of my legal rights and do feel the conditions are disproportionate to my offence. I do not deny my offence entirely, I accept it being possible things that I had downloaded had the potential of being illegal, but as far as I was aware I had only kept what I thought was adult material. But that is as far as my offence goes, there is no evidence of distribution, nor any evidence that I have committed any physical harm to any person. So why have I been given the wrong charge and disproportionate conditions? Hi xdanx i think we all understand, we have all been there, i guess you were charged with possession and also making, under the SOA making refers to downloading of indecent images, not taking. when your in court it is the job of the cps on behalf of the public to show you for the worst that you are and present the evidence in that way. It is the job of your defence counsel to counter those arguments and to show you are not the bad person that the cps made out and that you have had issues. In regards to the shpo i think i have already answered this in another post, and if there are items on yours that current case law state should not then you need to apply to haver it varied, and you will need to present evidence to the judge as to why the identified points should not be there. stay safe As far as I am aware, I was charged for making, but based on how I am being treated I feel I am being charged for further offences in which are not outlined in any of the paper work. Social services however seem to think I am guilty of everything including taking, permitting to take, distribution which there is no evidence of and accuse me of "minimizing" my convictions when I correct them. They say this information was given to them "verbally" by a police officer who attended a meeting with them and there is no actual written document. So in all honesty, I really am not sure what I am even guilty of anymore because the only thing these services are good at is keeping me in the dark to turn me into a statistic. I will be looking into my SHPO and having it varied but I am half tempted to explore an appeal of my sentence. Problem is locally everyone I have spoke to about these issues simply do not care and do not know how to do their jobs and have turned me away. Hi Dan, if you have been found guilty in court, then you would have been given a document confirming what offences you are guilty of and the sentence imposed. THis would also show on your SHPO paperwork As a recently convicted sex offender you will have social services crawling all over you if you have access to children under the age of 18yrs of age. All they have to go on is the report they receive from the court and from MAPPA. (As a convicted sex offender you will be known to your local MAPPA team, this team consists of a number of agencies including the police, social services, the local council, local housing rep etc and also a lay member of the public. it is your job to show social services that you are not a risk You might find these useful to read https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/mappa/https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/information-relationships-children-dealing-social-services/there is a lot to take in i understand that, and all that have messaged you on here have been in your shoes, i have read over a number of the posts you have made, and please dont take this the wrong way, there is no ill intent, but the sooner you start to accept the conviction and the sentence (Suspended) (Your lucky in that regards i got three years prison back in 2007) the better this will start to work out. Having just been convicted you have a lot of work to do to prove to these people that you are not a risk, and you will find it a lot lot easier to work with instead of against them, as working against them they will just see a person that is not willing to address his offending and change, dont get me wrong dont let them take you for a ride, know your rights and what is and not allowed but as time goes on it does get easier. We have all been there As far as I can see from the paper work it states "making indecent photograhs x3" I have no idea why it says x3 so maybe someone could help explain that? I mentioned before I had already pleaded guilty at magistrates. I was advised to make my plea but given very little information on what I was even pleading guilty too. I will take a look at those links you provided tomorrow, I think I have read them briefly before but not read it enough to fully understand it. Hopefully it will help me uncover some more information as to why a lot of information is being inaccurately recorded. I take no ill intent from your last points as it is good advice to simply accept things as they are to help move forward, unfortunately I am not one to give up so easily. If I know there is a problem which needs addressing which I think I have explained in enough detail, then I must fight for what I believe in and get whats incorrect corrected. I agree that if something needs fighting for then you fight for it especially if you are with in your rights making x3 means that you were charged and found guilty of three counts of making indecent images of children under the SOA, this means that they would have taken three specimen of the images you had and charged you on those, that’s how it normally works where you not found guilty of possession as well ? I do not believe so, it only states making. The x3 is usually because each different category of image is a separate charge, Cat A, Cat B, Cat C, so although it's lumped together into one hearing, there are three charges. The sentence will usually be concurrent though, so the sentence for Cat A will be the longest but B and C will finish before then. You think this would help when it comes to these convictions being spent, but the SHPO stops anything being spent (which I think is wrong, but I'm not going to change the world). As far as I'm aware the vague term "making" covers 'downloading' 'viewing' 'possessing' 'looking at' as acceptable alternative phrases, but taking is not an acceptable alternative phrase as that is a different charge when an offender takes a picture with a camera, for example.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
You also have to bear in mind that regardless of the verdict the PPU and MAPPA will use the internal police report. There doesn't appear to be any differentiation in terms of level of offence and how you are dealt with once you are on the SOR (all that matters is the risk assessment) so it's probably not worth worrying about.
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xHi' I have a SOPO, now with 3 conditions left as I have managed to remove the rest.  My offence was paying for sexual services of a female under 18, so linked to prostitution and as the Court and CPS stated; no grooming, predatory actions violence etc and completely unknown to me before the offence. Condition 1: not allowed contact with the female involved plus another female I do not know? However the PPU have agreed for this to be removed as it is now not relative. Condition 2: is to do with supervision of under 16 year olds and notifying parents or guardians so does not say I cannot, I just have to inform them of my offence. Condition 3: is staying in a household overnight where under 16 year olds may also be, again I just have to tell the parent or guardian not that I cannot. Confusion that arises: Condition one is who is the 2nd female but really now that is not relevant as they agree for it's removal when I apply but why was it there: I have that in writing Condition 2 seems to logically contradict the statement made by the Court and CPS in that they agree I was approached by a working female not me to her! Condition 3 I have argued is illogical partly in the same manner as No 2 and as the offence took place outside any house. The 'argument' placed by the PPU/ force solicitor when I informed them I was applying for their removal was that they would contest 2 and 3 because females would be in my 'target' age group. When i verbally spoke to them about this and reminded them of the statements in Court by the Judge and CPS, and that why does both include males, they said 'target' was a poor choice of word and refused any further comment. However even though I have NO internet offences, note all my media and computers were checked for over 6 months on arrest with no concerns, they now focus on why I do use Privzer software to clean all history etc. Reminding them I have been an IT consultant since 1989 and have security concerns does me no favors. I have (had) to agree not to delete any internet history until my next visit, when they will bring hardware/software to run on my laptop. They deny trying to catch me out; not that I have any concerns, but will not arrange a meeting date and time. Is it my sense of humour. I will not continue with this lack of personal security past the check or allow any software to monitor me because I have not committed an internet related offence. Finally in regard to lie detector tests, I fully agree that it is a "media entertainment" attraction for individuals who want the focus to be on others. If I am asked to undertake a test I will refuse, partly because of my previous words BUT more importantly because on my arrest I stated 3 points as an explanation for my offence and I was willing to take a lie detector test to prove my honesty/word. My request was ignored/discarded as a gimmick and nothing more! So why should I take one now? Keep safe, work with your PPU, believe in rehabilitation and remember constructive questions are not wrong, it is blind criticism that is not supportive to your / our case. - No contact with anyone under 18 years, unless unavoidable as part of daily lawful life / conviction known to parents with approval of social services
- using devices with internet, unless retains history of internet use, makes it available for inspection
- deleting such history or any other files which record internet history or file browsing history
- using software which prevents internet devices from retaining history
- using false internet protocols address, name, alias or persona on internet
- using incognito mode
- possessing devices which store digital images, unless made available
- purchasing, using or downloading evidence elimination, encryption software or other file cleaning software.
- using any cloud storage, unless declared and made available
- not to engage in work / volunteer which could result in contact with under 18's
- refusing entry to your home
First order should technically be removed as my offence was internet related only, no evidence of physical contact ect
As for the rest I am unsure if they can be removed.
Hi Understand you comment on the 1st condition however as with mine they expand their concern by saying "what stops you from (in your case) going from a virtual to physical manner of satisfying your needs?" I am not saying you would but for you to build a strong argument to succeed you have to view the conditions and risk possibilities through their eyes. Good luck in having them removed.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+xHi' I have a SOPO, now with 3 conditions left as I have managed to remove the rest. My offence was paying for sexual services of a female under 18, so linked to prostitution and as the Court and CPS stated; no grooming, predatory actions violence etc and completely unknown to me before the offence. Condition 1: not allowed contact with the female involved plus another female I do not know? However the PPU have agreed for this to be removed as it is now not relative. Condition 2: is to do with supervision of under 16 year olds and notifying parents or guardians so does not say I cannot, I just have to inform them of my offence. Condition 3: is staying in a household overnight where under 16 year olds may also be, again I just have to tell the parent or guardian not that I cannot. Confusion that arises: Condition one is who is the 2nd female but really now that is not relevant as they agree for it's removal when I apply but why was it there: I have that in writing Condition 2 seems to logically contradict the statement made by the Court and CPS in that they agree I was approached by a working female not me to her! Condition 3 I have argued is illogical partly in the same manner as No 2 and as the offence took place outside any house. The 'argument' placed by the PPU/ force solicitor when I informed them I was applying for their removal was that they would contest 2 and 3 because females would be in my 'target' age group. When i verbally spoke to them about this and reminded them of the statements in Court by the Judge and CPS, and that why does both include males, they said 'target' was a poor choice of word and refused any further comment. However even though I have NO internet offences, note all my media and computers were checked for over 6 months on arrest with no concerns, they now focus on why I do use Privzer software to clean all history etc. Reminding them I have been an IT consultant since 1989 and have security concerns does me no favors. I have (had) to agree not to delete any internet history until my next visit, when they will bring hardware/software to run on my laptop. They deny trying to catch me out; not that I have any concerns, but will not arrange a meeting date and time. Is it my sense of humour. I will not continue with this lack of personal security past the check or allow any software to monitor me because I have not committed an internet related offence. Finally in regard to lie detector tests, I fully agree that it is a "media entertainment" attraction for individuals who want the focus to be on others. If I am asked to undertake a test I will refuse, partly because of my previous words BUT more importantly because on my arrest I stated 3 points as an explanation for my offence and I was willing to take a lie detector test to prove my honesty/word. My request was ignored/discarded as a gimmick and nothing more! So why should I take one now? Keep safe, work with your PPU, believe in rehabilitation and remember constructive questions are not wrong, it is blind criticism that is not supportive to your / our case. - No contact with anyone under 18 years, unless unavoidable as part of daily lawful life / conviction known to parents with approval of social services
- using devices with internet, unless retains history of internet use, makes it available for inspection
- deleting such history or any other files which record internet history or file browsing history
- using software which prevents internet devices from retaining history
- using false internet protocols address, name, alias or persona on internet
- using incognito mode
- possessing devices which store digital images, unless made available
- purchasing, using or downloading evidence elimination, encryption software or other file cleaning software.
- using any cloud storage, unless declared and made available
- not to engage in work / volunteer which could result in contact with under 18's
- refusing entry to your home
First order should technically be removed as my offence was internet related only, no evidence of physical contact ect
As for the rest I am unsure if they can be removed.
Hi xdanx the case law to get the first point removed is R v Smith & Others (2011) [EWCA Crim 1772]. In summary, the Court of Appeal ruled or confirmed the following; - SOPOs should not duplicate other regimes designed to offer public protection. For example, there is little point in making an order banning an individual from certain types of activity if such a ban is already in place as a result of the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;
- SOPOs are not generally appropriate in the cases of those subject to indeterminate sentences (Life or IPP) as the licence conditions attached to such individuals offer a much more reflexive approach to managing risk where appropriate;
- That SOPOs should run in tandem with the normal duration of the notification requirements and should not be used to extend notification requirements beyond the point normally prescribed by law (i.e. those whose sentences warrant a determinate period on the ‘register’ should not be made the subject of an indeterminate SOPO);
- Blanket prohibitions on computer or internet use are not appropriate. Rather a prohibition should prevent the subject from refusing the police access to a computer in order to inspect it upon request;
- Prohibitions on unsupervised contact with children should not be included in the case of those convicted of internet-based offences ‘just in case’ they progress to contact offences. Instead “There must be identifiable risk of contact offences before this kind of prohibition can be justified”;
- Police and prosecutors should provide a draft of a proposed order at least two days in advance of any hearing and certainly not on the day of the hearing itself.
that also covers your last point of refusal entry to home this is covered under the Sexual offences act and being on the register one of those conditions is you can’t refuse reasonable entry to PPU hope this helps stay safe Does the same apply to SHPO's as your points only refer to SOPO? If so then it will be extremely useful, however given its been over 2 years since my sentence. Can I even contest everything I have mentioned? including being given the wrong sentence entirely? I was given nothing before my sentence, I spoke with a barrister before entering the crown court who told me what the SHPO restrictions would be, I asked questions but did not really know what to ask nor was I advised. I then left court with the above orders. all on the same day. I have raised complaints with the solicitors but that has gone no where and I have forwarded my case to the legal ombudsman which I am still after almost a year, still waiting for a response. I have a much better understanding now so thank you, and everyone else for your input. I will be contacting some solicitors with this new information Hi My solicitor was the same with my sopo hence why I have battled for 9 years to get where I am today and still battling! In regard to solicitor complaints it took me over 5 years to get satisfaction. I managed to change their procedures but then they outsourced their complaints handling and that was less responsive. With one item of my complaint it was the Police who assisted me by providing evidence that allowed me to claim back approx £14K from legal aid contributions. The solicitors still refused to offer an apology or reply. One complaint I had was that I was informed I would be managed by a solicitor, their contract document actual said that PLUS used the word 'lawyer'! When I discovered he was a trainee paralegal they claimed that the word 'lawyer' was another word for 'trainee paralegal' The ombudsman that is supposed to monitor complaints on solicitors was no use at all and offered nothing except to say they had complied with the processes; even though I won 2 complaints via the legal ombudsman, that took 3 years. Ensure you still have all correspondence as they will have and will use it against you.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+xpunter99 Speaking more on the whole 'making, possession', I dug through some of the emails I had sent my solicitor and he included a pdf file which was a guideline on sexual offences. Same file can be found here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sexual-offences-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf. It states the following: "Production includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing"
I then found this online by the CPS dated from 2018 https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children which in my view contradicts what is said in the above guidelines ."Opening an attachment to an email containing an image"
"Downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen"
This was also quite an interesting read which I will also include http://www.dilloway.co.uk/definition-of-indecent-image-offences.htmlIn short, the courts are simply ignoring their own guidelines so that people get longer convictions because those who are issued with 'making' make better headlines which in turn, makes the public think the offence is more serious than it actually is. Followed by inconsistent restrictions given via SOPO / SHPO which are only place for individuals to fail. Moving on to my PPU, I am under no orders to have any monitoring software installed, and even if it was offered to me now I will not be accepting it. I am happy to comply with his instructions until I have all the information from impartial and legal advice which will later be challenged. I respect your statement about giving up article 8 if you allow it to be installed. However if one thing has been proven time and time again is that the police will use everything they can against you. Because in their eyes everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I did question my SHPO with the barrister however he completely failed to take any notes and pretty much skipped 80% of the issues I had. Ultimately the judge threw out his arguments and I was forced to have them imposed on me. In all honesty my head was not in the right place at the time and had I known what I know now the out come would of been completely different. But I suppose that is how certain cases are won, give as less defense to defendants as possible and cause panic and fear for better results. On the making point, you are right that it sounds worse, to the public, but you don't get a longer sentence for making a copy by downloading. Making, in that sense, is treated as possession, for sentencing purposes. I agree that sentencing guidelines are written to imply that making is the same as production and it's true that production is treated as a much worse offence than possession. But the judges all know that making a copy is to be treated as possession, when they pass sentence. My barrister made exactly that point, to the judge, just to remind him. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you seem very aggreived. Angry at your legal team, the police, the law etc. I felt much the same emotions, after being arrested and convicted. I think it was really just anger at myself, for getting caught. Those feelings will pass, with time. The stress of the whole process, the trauma of the arrest, the fear I felt while waiting for sentencing, the intrusive visits from PPU etc. is immense and like you, my head wasn't in the right place, a lot of the time. My emotions were all over the place and from a mental health perspective, the effects are a lot like PTSD. You feel like the whole world is against you. But there are people on your side, like the guys on this forum for example. I wish you all the best, for the future. Take care. I find it interesting that your barrister reminded the judge of the guidelines regarding, mine did nothing of the sort. I had no idea until I started doing my own research which I have shared. you are right in thinking that I am aggrieved and angry not only at my solicitor / police, but the whole system. I am angry because police have twisted and reworded reports to fit their narrative, claimed all of my devices tested positive which I know to be untrue, but refuse to give me details. They claim my offence dates back 10+years which is also untrue plus impossible and has fallen on deaf ears. My solicitor despite many requests never informed me or allowed me any chance to review and dispute evidence later claiming it would be illegal, he simply told me to plead guilty and I would not go to prison which I did when brought to Magistrates. Even to this day I have little knowledge or understanding of what I have pleaded guilty to and they are still refusing to give me this information. I argued the charge of making with solicitor and said it should be possession but did nothing to change or even understand this. In short everyone I was involved with in my case have simply not done their jobs and I have felt for some years mistreated and a victim of negligence. I have struggled with my mental health over the years even before all this started, it is difficult to let go of how all this has made me feel but I can say I am using those feelings in a positive way to keep strong and fight for what I know is wrong. Hi xDanx I wonder if you could give a bit more detail about your situation? You can tell me to mind my own business, if you want. I won't be offended. What sentence did you actually get? Do you think it's unfair that you were given an SHPO at all, or is just that you think some of it's terms are disproportionate to the offence? Do you deny the offence completely? In other words, are you saying that you never had any illegal images, on any of your devices, at any time? Thanks In terms of my situation are you asking for details which resulted in my arrest and offence? As in what I did and why? Its difficult to talk about as at this time I was already heavily depressed and at times felt suicidal due to many issues I was facing. I don't want to make the whole mental health excuse either, but in short I was simply to stupid at the time to understand what I was getting myself involved in online and what was being downloaded. I was sentenced to 10 months suspended for 2 years for making of indecent images, given a community order where I had to complete rehabilitation program for 30 days. I think given the offence I understand a SHPO would need to be in place, but I do feel I have been unfairly treated in terms of being kept in the dark of my legal rights and do feel the conditions are disproportionate to my offence. I do not deny my offence entirely, I accept it being possible things that I had downloaded had the potential of being illegal, but as far as I was aware I had only kept what I thought was adult material. But that is as far as my offence goes, there is no evidence of distribution, nor any evidence that I have committed any physical harm to any person. So why have I been given the wrong charge and disproportionate conditions? Hi I can provide details; and have done in other posts, of a solicitor I used (after dumping by original lol) who has a very good track record with ex-offender image offences. My offence was not images or internet but his record on those offences made me phone him. His office is in Reading but I was hundreds of miles from him when he helped me remove most of mine. I also work directly with my PPU to get their agreement on the last. This is a challenge in itself and I know I don't have to get their consent now, but in the end you stand a better chance with their agreement. Good luck
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
Unfortunately I am in no position to pay for any legal advice, I have reached out to a few who have been able to provide some assistance and answer some of my questions but any further will cost me. I have put forward a case with the legal ombudsman last year which I still have no reply from as yet. I should know by August hopefully. When the legal ombudsmen get back to me would I be able to give further evidence for them to consider in regards to negligence? Should I make another complaint with the solicitors with the new information I have and keep pushing them?
I want to work with the PPU as much as I can which is why I have followed everything they have told me to do, even though they are wrong. Would it be worth giving him an email with a bunch of questions for him to answer? such as what is my actual conviction? what level of risk to you believe I pose? Do you feel the conditions on my SHPO are proportionate to my offence and why?
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xUnfortunately I am in no position to pay for any legal advice, I have reached out to a few who have been able to provide some assistance and answer some of my questions but any further will cost me. I have put forward a case with the legal ombudsman last year which I still have no reply from as yet. I should know by August hopefully. When the legal ombudsmen get back to me would I be able to give further evidence for them to consider in regards to negligence? Should I make another complaint with the solicitors with the new information I have and keep pushing them? I want to work with the PPU as much as I can which is why I have followed everything they have told me to do, even though they are wrong. Would it be worth giving him an email with a bunch of questions for him to answer? such as what is my actual conviction? what level of risk to you believe I pose? Do you feel the conditions on my SHPO are proportionate to my offence and why? Thanks for your honesty xDanx. When it comes to appealing the sentence, I think it's the case that the court can increase your sentence, as well as reduce it, if you appeal. But I'm not 100% certain of this. Perhaps someone else, on here, knows? http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB-Appealing%20against%20your%20conviction%20or%20sentence.pdfIn my opinion, and it is just my opinion, your sentence was not excessive, for a making or a possession offence. You avoided jail and that is a huge win. I also got a community order and was pretty happy with it, since my barrister had said, before sentencing, that he thought I would "more than likely" go to jail. These are serious offences and prison is a real possibility. When it comes to Social Services, remember that they don't know anything about you, as a person. As unfair as it is, you are going to be treated as a risk to children, until they get to know you better. It's one of the consequences of these types of offences and it's why they are regarded as so serious. I think that most of the people on here, who've been through this, realise that just because they know, in themselves, that they would never hurt a child, it's hard to convince others of that fact. Social services will have dealt with cases of horrific abuse and their priority, as they see it, is protecting children, from you. I know that's hard to hear, but it's a reality, which all of us have had to face up to. Looking at your SHPO, I don't see those conditions as being anything unusual, for a making or a posession offence. The fact that SS are involved and you have restrictions around contacting under 18s, suggests to me that there is a child somewhere, that they are concerned about. If there were no children around, the SS wouldn't be involved. You could certainly ask the PPU about these things, just to be clear what they think about your risk. You won't necessarily get a straight answer though, it really depends on the PPU and their attitude. Some are more helpful than others.
|
|
Simon1983
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 202,
Visits: 6.4K
|
Punter 99 is correct a sentence can be increased as well as decreased on appeal. I agree with Punter, take it is a win that you did not get a prison sentence like some of us. And what is on your SHPO is common place for possession and downloading I have already sent you the links from unlock re Social Services If there is a child that is a blood relative and you are having problems with social services then you might also want to contact the family rights group https://www.frg.org.ukHope this helps stay safe
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
Thank you to everyone for sharing and providing very useful information. I had to take a few days to compose my self better as all this info was simply over loading me and triggering my anxiety. I have children who I have only seen a handful of times since my being sentenced hence why the social are involved. After some further digging however, it turns out the root of the problem in terms of the inaccurate information that was being passed around, was in fact from probation according to a social worker so I will be giving them a call to find out more. Possibly even put in a complaint if I have to.
I am grateful and also agree I am lucky I did not get a custodial sentence, I am fortunate that I now know who my true friends are but it still does not make it any easier to move on. Given the conditions I am forced to live under I simply can not enjoy life with those friends because I am constantly needing "permission" or told disclosures need to made where ever I go. I think that is for another topic though as there is a story I would like to share sometime so will save that for another post when I am in the right frame of mind. Right now I just want to thank everyone for sharing your experiences and providing so much information which has been of massive help. I really would like to follow the advice given by simply accepting things for what they are, believe me I am trying too but its difficult knowing I was thrown into the deep end given none of my legal rights which they took advantage of to turn me into a statistic to make them look better. Anyways I will end the post here before I turn it into a rant, I will continue to push for information and see where it leads me and will share any progress I make in hopes it will be helpful for anyone else who are under similar circumstances.
|