Hello everyone

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and insight, it's really helpful. 

Your words - and others - are an encouragement to others and though it sound strange for me to say, "is part of the reason why I enjoy visiting this forum."

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.

It is for this reason I continue to share the links for the Smith ruling, to make it known. The more it is known the more people will talk about it and stop letting the courts, Police from ignoring and bypassing this ruling and getting away with it.
We can not just blindly trust any and all solicitors for the best defense, the best advice. Some self research is vital and then you can argue your case to the courts with the relevant information. I do accept that most judges can and will simply ignore the ruling, but then that gives you grounds for appeal.

I do agree that the justice system is clearly being ran by the media, I have never seen a single article make any sort of reference to the smith ruling. Why? Because it is fundamentally a vital piece of information that could potentially stop offenders being given a SHPO at all. Therefore preventing Police carrying out searches, stopping contact. Which would only anger the public and the article potentially not being published in the first place, stopping the media profiting.

Things might seem easier to just accept the outcome and "live with it" and to make the necessary changes to comply, but some are not able too especially when it comes to family. The Smith ruling makes it clear that "great care must be taken when a contact restriction is given... as it infringes on the child's (if offender has any kids or family under 18) rights to family life"
The choice is entirely up to that individual, but I think spreading awareness is still an important thing to do

Paul, thank you but please realize I will always support any offender who wishes to become an ex-offender. My words are never aimed at "harming" anyone but to stress "rehabilitation" is a hard and long journey.

You are not alone on yours and on this forum there is always a supportive but honest shoulder.

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.

Hi

The point is that we know the Judge/Court/Law can say one thing but in reality "good" lawers can manipulate "information provided" to support their own agenda. Also not all Judges are experienced / knowledgable on what should or should not be allowed.

In reality the system is a "protective" system and therefore it can be argued that because someone has committed an offence their is a "risk" they will do so again. Otherwise why do the likes of employers and insurance companies penalized ex offenders?

As I mentioned, "societies" impression of the "nature" of those who have committed an offence is not implanted by "logic" but the agenda of the media and Judicial System.

I agree with the concept that re-offending is low but Stats are always based on the data selected so can be different accordingly.

I can provide you a link for a probation report that states a "low risk offender" is a lower risk than a "non convicted" member of society; but do you see any authority allowing that to be used to the benefit of any ex-offender?

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.

Thanks for your considered message. 

The courts were quite clear that restrictions are based on what the person has done, not what they might do. DanX made that clear as well.
Given the very low re offending rates as well (3% commit a second images offence and only 1% commit a contact offence, following an image offence) there is no justification for contact restrictions in an images only case. The only exceptions would be if there was some evidence of behaviour involving contact. For example, the way Huw Edwards had been reported to the BBC for inappropriate behaviour towards some of his colleagues, might suggest he was capable of escalation.

hi
its taken me a little internal mind thinking on your reply because though I agree with the majority, there are points in particular I am always cautious in agreeing with - sorry
First we have to acknowledge that everyone of us is at fault for viewing whatever punishment given to us emotionally, as we think we "know ourselves". We do not! 
If we did know ourselves, then why did we not stop ourselves committing an offense!

Contact v non contact. As I have discussed before, saying something has basically not caused "damage" because of a lack of physicality, does not mean it has not happened! Even the arguement that "AI" is harmless has basic flaws, because in brief, it is "satisfying a sexual interest not deemed appropiate!" and somewhere an individual is or could be encouraged into undertaking harm to satisfy the interest. That is the reason for the punishment and considering future risk.

It is argued - and supported - that an "interest" can grow and so lead to an individual lessening their "controls" and so wonder "what real life" is like.
Though I agree SOP/SHPO and even the SOR, is used on emotional and political grounds rather than "physiological"; we live in an environment that is fueled by mostly ignorance. Now they are in place, our best form of "protest" is  - as others have suggested - challenging what has been imposed by evidential and logical legal arguement case by case. This may not stop their incorrect use but it will be recorded for future law makers to see in their analysis.  

"Paul" is beginning his journey and will see that those "overseeing us" are not really interested in our immediate repentive actions but the actions and responses to their "actions" against us over the long term.

I wish Paul a successful journey through this process, but importantly I hope he gains the knowledge to develop his "self controls" so not offend again; which only time and experience will provide to him.

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.

As strange as this might sound, don't be too worried about being barred by the DBS. It only applies to work, and has to be in what is called regulated activity (mainly healthcare, childcare, social care, etc.). In church, that would be things like helping out with Sunday school, for example. It should make no difference to your daily life, as it would only be mentioned on an enhanced DBS check with barring. It doesn't affect your ability to live your life beyond that. As you're retired, you wouldn't have to disclose it for work. If you still feel you shouldn't be barred, then if the DBS contacts you about it to say they are minded to bar you, contact Unlock's helpline for advice. If you weren't automatically barred because of your offence, they should only be considering barring you because you want to work in regulated activity, so if you're not looking to do that, they shouldn't be barring you, as they would still have that option if you actually did apply for that line of work.

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

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)

Welcome to the forum and it's great to see you've been contributing already. This is a great place for discussing matters that affect those with a criminal record and ultimately just to have a chat with people if you're feeling particularly low at any point.




Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) - Unlock

Might be worth considering asking for a variation of the order to remove any conditions you feel aren't necessary - some have had success with this and there are success stories available: Personal Stories - Unlock

Great to see you here and I look forward to seeing you around.

Ha! The SHPO discussion became sidelined. Without any fact or evidence the judge somehow heard and got it into her head I had 1.2 million images. So sort of understandbly she was ready to put me away immediately. So it took a second hearing to clear that up (more expense with my solicitor) thus the SHPO didn't get revisited.  Also now ( my loving church..) have referred me for the lifetime DBS barring. I'm fortunate that none of this will have any adverse affect in practise. My son (32) says he doesn't want children. It's all been annoying and frustrating. Though as I remind myself, and anyone I'm talking to, I only have myself to blame. 

Welcome to the forum!

I posted on you're other topic about supervision before reading you're intro detailing the offense, it is sad to see that the courts continue to not enforce what was ruled in the Smith ruling when it comes to SHPO's
Because the offense was image related and non contact, there absolutely should not be a contact restriction on your SHPO. They should not include restrictions "just in case" you escalate to contact offenses and this makes it extremely disproportionate if they have zero evidence to suggest you would commit further offenses

Were you represented by any solicitor? one you paid for or perhaps one provided for free by police?

The can apply to have the SHPO discharged after the 5 year mark with out the permission from police, however if you wish to have the SHPO amended to potentially remove disproportionate restrictions. You can do this at anytime.

If you wish to give the smith ruling a read then you can find it here https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1772.html

Welcome!

Fellow images offence here! I was convicted at the start of 2020 just before COVID kicked in so I feel incredibly fortunate that I had a proper excuse not to see anybody especially during the early stages of my conviction.

Like yourself, it didn't seem to have too much of a big affect on my life. I did lose my job at the time which came as zero surprise however that company ended up making everyone redundant 6 months later so I would've been out of a job anyway!

As I can't see how to post a new topic to the introduction forum I though I'd do it here!

Just some brief details: police visit Jan 2021, charged August 2024, convicted Oct 2024 - indecent images of children, 16 months suspended for 18, 10 year SHPO, SOR and 100 hours community work. All this took a long time to conclude, my offending was over part of 2020. In common as other will recognise - I was in a low place with many problems - none are excuses (as the judge commented, other people have these problems and don't offend ..). A long time for the process, much as others will have experienced, but I did as much work as immediately as possible, Lucy Faithfull, psychological assessment, reading, counselling. All very helpful - to me, at that time not thinking any effect on sentencing.

In my mid 60's and retired, I'm fortunate that all this has had little adverse impact. One very major benefit (yes, really!) my relationship with my wife (of 45 years) has massively improved. She was very disappointed in me, but just so helpful and supportive. Main downside has been that my long term involvement with my church as stopped entirely. I won't detail much here for now, but they have been completely unsupportive only risk adverse to the extreme (or as my wife describes it "vindictive"). Actually, hugely disappointing, as the support, empathy and care from the police I've been involved with, now probation and others has been of the highest standard.

The SHPO, in my opinion is both unnecessary and disproportionate, I may try and get it cancelled after 5 years so my conviction can then be spent. Does it have any real problems to me now, other than annoyance, not really. Most significant impact is all my insurances now twice as much, and may impact EU travel when ETAS comes into force.

Happy to chat to anyone about my experiences etc.. and hope to contribute to this Forum.