I see what you mean about "serious" offences, but I think that there will be more sexual offences excluded than any other category. I'm thinking that for violent offences, it would be anything that gets you an indeterminate sentence, as they aren't specifically excluded in the white paper. That wouldn't help anyone with a short-tariff IPP, so maybe they do just mean life sentences, not IPPs. Of course, our interpretations might be naive, and as a cynic, I hope I'm not naive.

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

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)

Hi all

Just been looking at the thoughts section written by Lord Justice Hughes in "The Queen V Smith & ORS, R" document on line https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7a360d03e7f57eb094c

Many will know how he discusses SOPO's.
In para 9. sub para iii, it mentions defendants being released at their "half" way point which we think will be changing if the BBC report is correct.
The reason I am mentioning this is raise a question of what else will be amended in the various "Acts" when the new ruling references are entered? 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Hi

"serious sexual, violent and terrorist offences"

Another reason why I question the words used by the authorities. Reading those 3 examples (which are descriptive phrases commonly used) would suggest that only sexual offences are classed as "serious", which in my simple opinion, again highlights a bigger issue with societies inhibitions. 

To clarify, I have never heard of a "sexual" offence been called just that! It is always "serious". Yet as I posted recently, a "drug dealer" who admits to manipulating the minds of children is seen as a victim of circumstances and rewarded with both the emotional and financial support by society.  
Even a supporter of terrorism, who annonces publically her desire to "destroy" the UK gains more support than an EX-SO.

I will leave my thoughts on "monitoring" to another post as I am going to far off topic in trying to explain the unexplainable e.g. the psychology of society.

Take care

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

I agree, but society will always need some people to be outcasts, to help hold the rest together. 

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

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)

Just more discrimination

I would like to point out that paragraph 259 of the white paper excludes "serious sexual, violent and terrorist offences". So, some of us will benefit, some of us won't. Classy.

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

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)

So people can see here is the link to the white paper 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918187/a-smarter-approach-to-sentencing.pdf

Buried in the sentencing report (page 63) are proposals to give probation officers the power to administratively change a court order to suit the needs of the ex-offender. SHPOs are not mentioned specifically, but an SHPO is a court order. That would have a significant effect on the need for ex-offenders to go to court. Of course one of the problems of SHPOs, not covered in this report, but mentioned in the other one by the Prison Reform Trust, is that an SHPO extends the time that a conviction is spent, so that it is not spent until the end of the SHPO, which could be many years later. That isn't even mentioned in the sentencing report, which suggests it has been overlooked.

The media seemed to have missed the Prison Reform Trust report entirely. Nothing positive in the Guardian and nothing hateful in the Sun and the Mail. Instead they are all focusing on the govts plans to give life sentences to teenagers and to people who drive dangerously. The latest govt proposals for longer sentences and even more prisons, run contrary to the whole notion of rehabilitation, as the solution to crime.

I can imagine what the haters would say though, which is, why 'reward' SO by giving them jobs, while there are millions of unemployed people who need jobs, but who don't have a criminal record?

But the most interesting bit of that report was that it recognises that unecessary disclosure by the police to employers is actually increasing the chances of people reoffending. For example,

"Disclosures have been made very clumsily to employers, where the person isn’t working with kids or vulnerable people … They may well be increasing the risk of that person reoffending."

"Professionals working with people with sexual convictions suggested that criminal justice practitioners could make it unduly hard for this group to find work"

on page 43;

"A member of staff at an organisation providing support for people on release from prison explained that some people with sexual convictions are ‘so heavily managed’ it can be almost impossible to gain work:

"If he ever gets offered any work it takes the police and probation two to three weeks to do a risk assessment … He did get offered a really good job, but the police sergeant blocked it"  

"Police officers often have the same hysteria [about sex offending] that everyone else does. Risk management isn’t always about stopping people doing things. Sometimes the more restrictions you put on people the more you increase the risk. "

"Research explains the importance of combining risk management with supporting people with sexual convictions to lead fulfilling, meaningful lives. People under probation supervision are unlikely to feel engaged and motivated if the focus is solely on restricting their activities, with little regard for promoting their wellbeing."

All these things should be brought to the attention of any PPU, who is restricting someone's life, without good reason.

Report recommendation 18.
National Probation Service and the College of Policing should develop guidance for probation and police to increase their awareness of the impact of disclosure of a sexual conviction on employment prospects. This would help practitioners make proportionate decisions about disclosing information to employers, balancing the risk of harm with the rehabilitation needs of those they are supervising

The likes of unlock and the prison reform trust need to take there report forward that was just published, and push for all court orders regardless of what they are, be it SOPO/SHPO/Restraining order etc etc from being linked to an offence and stoping a conviction from becoming spent.

they need to be looked at as monitoring tools like the SOR, that are used to monitor the offender, and do not cause a conviction to remain unspent.

Yes, this is huge. I'd be immediately spent. But I'm listening out for "orders will no longer mean unspent." Great news for many though. It's just a White Paper at the moment, I'm not sure how long it'll take to pass with or without amendments, but potentially a huge step forward.

EDIT: It doesn't look like a change to orders meaning you're unspent. So under the new rehab period, I'd already be spent, but obviously a judge who doesn't know me at all pulls rank and leaves me unspent for years to come. Sigh.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.