One problem with this is that, as the law stands, an SHPO can be given to "any person who has been convicted, found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged or cautioned for an offence listed in either Schedule 3 or 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003". So, no conviction, no SHPO. Of course, the government could (and probably would) change the law to allow SHPOs to be handed out, but that is what SROs are for. As punter99 said, they're available so why aren't they used? I've just read the law, and it seems tailor-made for circumstances like this.


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

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
As always you write / raise very interesting topics however one point I think I would question.

That is " they know the defence will portray the girls as liars and the jury will probably believe it."

This is now an outdated stance as "the girls" are often protected from this by the Court so many defence councils will avoid this attacking unless they have concrete and overall evidence behind them.

I would raise the point on "risk" but we have discussed that in the past.

Take care and hopefully have an enjoyable holiday period.

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.

Recently I was watching Channel 4's coverage of a grooming gang, operating in Cumbria and it struck me that all these cases merited the use of SROs. 
The pattern of behaviour in Cumbria, Telford, Rochdale and Rotherham is always the same. The police knew what was going on, they sent their evidence to the CPS and the CPS refused to bring charges, because the victims were seen as 'unreliable'. 

But for an SRO, you only need to convince the court on the balance of probabilities. You don't need the criminal standard of proof. You also don't need to convince a jury and that matters, because the reason the CPS dont want to go to court, is that they know the defence will portray the girls as liars and the jury will probably believe it.

At the same time, the courts love to hand out SHPOs at every opportunity, even to the lowest risk individuals who have committed no-contact offences on the internet. The risk level of the men suspected of grooming should be far higher and arguably these are exactly what SROs, SHPOs and MAPPA were created for. Then the PPU could put their visiting and monitoring skills to good use for a change and uncover some real evidence of offending, to bring these gangs to justice.