The most relevant part is para 10.22

10.22 Subject to a risk assessment and where appropriate, offenders should be encouraged make the disclosures themselves in the first instance. This may be done in private or in the presence of the police, probation or social care, depending on the circumstances and the offender’s preference. However disclosures made by an offender in private must be followed up by the lead agency to ensure that accurate information has been disclosed and that the recipient understands the implications of the disclosure. Disclosure should not be unduly delayed to enable the offender to make the disclosure.

10.23 Offenders do not have to be told that a disclosure has taken place... If representations are not sought from the offender,the person receiving the disclosure should be told that the offender does not know that it has been made.

There is NO legal duty on anybody to disclose, but there is a legal obligation, on the authorities, to consider disclosing.

Also see para 10.18, for info about how the disclosure should be made and the work that the police have to do. Also in the College of Police advice on disclosure, it states:

"The responsibility to disclose information about a MAPPA category 1 offender who is managed at level 1 rests with an officer of superintendent rank. While the superintendent may choose to delegate this for day-to-day operational ease, they retain overall responsibility."

Many thanks for your response and the information. I just want to get as much ammunition as I can prior to my next meeting in a couple of days time so I can state my case from an informed position.

Thanks

The MAPPA team pretty much do as they wish. I've never found a "MAPPA Rules for Offenders", so it is very difficult to stop them acting unlawfully as we don't know how they operate* - and as you 're new here unlawful does not mean illegal. It just means acting without the authority of the law. 

* Not quite true, I did find a document outlining their role many years ago, but it was so woolly, I couldn't work out what it was other than it's a multiagency team that meets to discuss the offenders they are managing. However, I last actively looked for it 4 years ago, so maybe something has been published since.

Update: found this dated May 2022.  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101319/MAPPA_Guidance_May_22__002_.docx

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) s.327A places a duty on the RA to consider disclosing information to members of the public about the previous convictions of any child sex offender managed by the RA.

Chapters 9 & 10 seem to be the most relevant.

So it has to be a considered disclosure, proportionate and targeted at specific individuals. A blanket disclosure requirement would appear to be unlawful.

In theory they have to be able to justify their actions, but in practical terms there's not much that can be done without a court challenge. Challenge your PPO on this and you go down as "having something to hide.

Hi all

First time in here.

So, I have a SHPO which does not contain any restriction on contact with under 18s. My offender manager has told me that none of my children’s friends are allowed to visit my house unless I have disclosed to their parents. Even if I am not there when they visit. Are they able to do this? I have a feeling they are not as they can’t alter my SHOO without referring to court?

Any guidance appreciated

Thanks

True up to a point. I was told that if I didn't disclose to certain people then they would. Net result was the same, but they avoided doing it themselves.

There is not likely to be anything in the SHPO about disclosure. The restriction is on contact with under 18s. Disclosure is an optional choice, that the police can choose to make, not a requirement that the SO has to follow. They can ask you to disclose, but they cannot force you to do it, or they can do the disclosure themselves, provided they can identify a clear risk, not just because they feel like it.

I have come across other cases, where an SO was required to tell the police, if he started a new relationship with somebody. That was made part of the licence conditions, on his release from prison. But again, this is a requirement to tell the police, not to disclose to the person they were in the relationship with. Why was it written in that way? I suggest it is because disclosure is the job of the police, not the SO. As I said before, when they disclose they have to issue a warning, to the person being disclosed to, about the consequences of sharing the information. If the SO does the disclosure, then that warning will not be issued, which puts both the SO and the person who is disclosed to, at risk of potential legal action. Hence why disclosure should always be done by the police themselves.

Yeah it's the reading of the SHPOs which, I think, is the issue when it comes to the original theme for the thread around disclosure. You're lucky not to have one.
The annual notification stuff is more clear cut, so I'd imagine fewer issues arise because people know where they stand and what they're expected to do. 


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

I think it comes down to an individual's SHPO. I had no restrictions on association apart from the SOR 12-hour requirement. I would not even bother to contact my PPO if what I was doing wasn't covered by the SHPO or SOR. When I went to my sister's I always stuck to the letter of the order. There was no ban on overnight stays, just not longer than 12 hours. I got a job at an Amazon warehouse (or at least I had until the basic check came back!) I didn't think for one moment of telling my PPO I had it. It did not involve internet connected devices. I had no legal obligation to notify them.

However, we know that there are fellow forum posters with restrictive conditions. Unfortunately for them, it's either declare to their PPO or go back to court to challenge the conditions.

One thing that’s been coming up in conversations I've had with people recently is ‘protective factors’.

So if you’re going with a group of friends, relatives, a girlfriend etc. Then police shouldn’t really stifle what you do (I say shouldn’t, it doesn’t mean to say they won’t.) The theory is that people you go with will act as ‘protective factors’ from the potential of anything which could put you or someone else at risk.

But if you’re going on your own to something like paintballing/arcades etc stuff which a ppu might think is ‘stuff that kids do’ then they might (rightly or wrongly) get a bit jumpy. For me, it’s where that line is drawn, especially over a long period of time of saying ‘no’ because, remember, they’re also assessing your “attitude towards authority”.

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

It is great reading all of your perspectives on the matter, although my PPU does tend to ask a lot of questions and encourages me to get out more. I will follow his advice and sign up to a gym, if I am not obligated to share information that is out side of the notification requirements then I will simply not share it. Risk of doing this I would assume is an increase to my level of risk?

What about other hobby related activities? such as for example : go karting, paint balling, arcades.
My first PPU once told me that in order for me to do things such as paint balling. disclosure to the event handlers must be made and checked to ensure they are equipped to "manage" me attending. He then proceeded to state that he was "not happy with the idea of me crawling around bushes where under 18s may be present" and so basically told me I am not able to attend. Would this not still be considered a lawful activity where contact with under 18's is unavoidable? Granted, by not attending contact will be avoided but why should I have to miss out on something that "gets me out" just because of the potential under 18s will also be attending?

Do I have to avoid arcades, go karts, fairs, just because under 18's are more likely to be there?