https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/novlett-robyn-williams-met-police-case-dropped-sex-offender-register-b1154775.html

Some interesting developments in this case. A person convicted of an image offence repeatedly breaks the SOR rules and gets away with it. 

"The court heard that she had admitted failing to comply with the requirements, but denied the charges on the basis she had a “reasonable excuse”. It was on the basis she did not intentionally withhold information, forgot or did not appreciate the need to make a notification, the court was told."

This might be understandable, apart from the fact that she is a serving police officer!  No one else gets to use these things as an excuse. I would say she should be more aware of the rules than an average member of the public. The other odd thing about it, is the reason that the prosecution dropped the case, which was mental health.

"Judge Richard Marks KC said the mental health report made “sad and unhappy reading”. He said he could “well imagine her being completely traumatised by the conviction”, adding: “Nobody could describe her as being a sex offender in the true meaning of that expression. ”The judge declined to formally acquit Ms Williams, saying the proper course was for the charges to lie on the court file. But added: “As far as I am concerned, she leaves the court with no stain on her character.”

Everybody convicted of image offences is 'completely traumatised by the conviction'. There are no exceptions. The effect on our mental health is devastating, long lasting and probably irreversible. But that does not prevent the justice system throwing the full weight of the law at us.

 "the prosecution has concluded that in light of the mental health report, in particular its assessment of the effect these ongoing proceedings are having on the current health of Ms Williams, it is no longer in the public interest to pursue the prosecution.”

Try telling that to Caroline Flack. This police officer obviously had a very good psychiatrist, but the CPS don't just drop charges because it upsets the person being charged. If they did, we could all use the mental health defence to avoid prosecution. 

The circumstances of the case are unusual, but I would argue that the real injustice here, are the double standards applied to a convicted SO. If the judge thinks her original conviction was unjust and that she is not a 'real' SO, then why not criticise the crazy possession laws that led to her being put on the SOR in the first place? If the possession laws were not so strict and inflexible, she would never have been convicted. I would also have liked the judge to have defined what they meant by "a sex offender in the true meaning of that expression".

As to the notification rules, the judge could have criticised those too, but I find it hard to believe that someone on the SOR can go on holiday to Kenya and 'forget' to mention it to her PPU. More likely, she thought the SOR rules did not apply to her and that she could just ignore them.

But something to remember and to quote, if you are ever accused of a breach. Just say you that did not appreciate the need to make a notification and then call your psychiatrist.

It is double standards, but given the absolute nonsense reason for her conviction im hoping the judge just applied common sense, but yes, double standards given what her previous position was, although, ive got to say I sympathise with her totally. My conviction was deserved, hers definitiely was not.

How many times will she get away with 'Yes but...' ?! Possession, yes but... didn't report it(!!), yes but... sacked, yes but... failed notification requirements multiple times, yes but... then overturning the sacking but still being convicted, *assuming* working as an officer while unspent for a sexual offence(!!!) and then resigning...  yes, b... what?! What a mess.

As for the "very detrimental effect" on her mental health, tell that to the many men (which include a serving police officer from a different force, who took his own life when it blew up for him) who would also have a 'sad and unhappy' tale, but they can't because they're either silenced, can't afford all the appeals or dead. What an insult.

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

Another implication in this is the blatant conflict of interest for the police. How you can work for or with the police while they are managing you because you are on the SOR? Probation won't let you work for or with them while you're under probation, because it is a conflict of interest.

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

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

It's only a conflict of interest if you are intent on reoffending. If the person is committed to leading a law abiding life, then they are ideally suited to helping others to live such a life. But the presumption is that those on probation cannot be trusted and that they will use their position to help others to offend, not stop them from offending.

Now in the case of this police officer, that assumption proved to be right. She went on holiday to a high risk country (Kenya) and if she had told her PPU, then it's almost certain that an interpol green notice would have been issued and she would have been refused entry. It seems extraordinary to me that she wouldn't know the notification rules, because knowing the law is essential to enforcing it. 

I disagree about the conflict of interest, as it doesn't depend on the intentions of the person. As I said, you shouldn't be working for the police if you are under their supervision, as the conflict of interest is right there, even if you are determined not to offend again. There is a requirement on all police staff to be honest and open about arrests, charges, convictions and restrictions, "so that appropriate safeguards can be put in place". Even if they were determined to keep her on the payroll, one of those safeguards must surely have been to make sure she knew exactly what her restrictions were. Even then, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence.

On the other hand, maybe people on the SOR should lean more heavily on the mental health effects of enforced isolation, and quote this case as a reference....

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

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)