|
Evan Davis
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 84,
Visits: 2.9K
|
Generally matters in Crown Courts are dealt with by the "Resident Judge", who is usually a named Judge and doesn't often change. Therefore, submitting a further application might only serve to wind them up. In any event, from my reading (and I have to qualify this by saying I am not, nor are any of us at Unlock, legal experts), the Judge under CPR did not have the power to effectively administratively dismiss the case, without offering you an opportunity to make representations on why a hearing was needed. In this instance, as your application has been determined (even if potentially wrongly), arguably it could potentially be seen as an abuse of process of the court to make a similar or identical application so quickly. I'd advise appealing to the Court of Appeal. The route of appeal against a decision, or refusal, to vary or discharge a SHPO is to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, despite the variation itself being considered a civil matter.
The route is via S353 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which gives a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (if variation took place at Crown Court), or appeal to the Crown Court if variation took place in Magistrates or Youth Court.
https://forum.unlock.org.uk/FindPost35645.aspx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 70,
Visits: 486
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing. Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application. I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal. To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week. Thank for your help As I mentioned before, it is vital you send a Subject Access Request to Police as anything they have said behind your back could also go in your favor. Thank you I will do this as well
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 413,
Visits: 12K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing. Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application. I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal. To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week. Thank for your help As I mentioned before, it is vital you send a Subject Access Request to Police as anything they have said behind your back could also go in your favor.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 70,
Visits: 486
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing. Thank you so I think I will go down the reapply route and try that making the point that I didnt get the opportunity to make any representations or respond to the police statement in the previous application. I can put in a summary about what devices are monitored and which are not and that all the alerts the software has produced are false alerts. This will prempt the police statement assuming they go down the same route for refusal. To be honest if all the police can give in evidence that I had a few false alerts in the last 6 years with no breaches I think their case is fairly week. Thank for your help
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 865,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court? There is something in the CPR about the court refusing to accept an application, if it is seen as an abuse of the process. That is presumably to stop people wasting the courts time by applying over and over again for a discharge. Apart from that, you should be able to make a new application anytime there is a change in your circumstances for the court to consider. There are no time limits or limits on the number of times this could happen, that I can see. As for police statements, you are right that these are supposed to be responded to at the hearing. It gives the judge and yourself an opportunity to challenge what the police are saying. You can include that as one of your representations to the court, as to why there ought to be a hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 70,
Visits: 486
|
+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely. This is where it gets complicated. The business is a limited company owned by me and my partner. So it is a work device owned by my limited company. However as I own the limited company the police say it needs to be monitored. I haven't really investigated this any further and to just have an easy life I haven't objected to it being registered or monitored. I have nothing to hide. I have the same issue with registering my business bank account and cards, I am told I have to register those as well although I believe these as I own the limited company. Even though business accounts/cards should be exempt from registration. So you can say that I can just apply again next week say? I don't have to wait a certain amount of time and the court will not kick it out because it is a duplicate or do I need to show changed circumstances since the last one I supplied in June? If anyone else can answer the question about the police statement that my Offender Manager gave in response to my application? Should I have been give a copy of this so I could challenge it or is it just a case they can say what they like and I don't get to question it or respond in any way. Or is that response suppose to happen in court?
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 413,
Visits: 12K
|
+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I would send a subject access request to the police in that case. Ask for all documentation relating to the visits you have had in the last 6 years, risk assessments, MAPPA reports ect. Anything that might benefit towards your application. The laptop you use for work, is this a laptop you purchased yourself or was it something your employer provided? If it was provided by the employer, then it should NOT be monitored or checked in the first place. The Smith ruling states that work related devices / libraries should not be monitored by police. Police could be making you breach data confidentiality by insisting they monitor work related material, but I suspect this is intentional as to gain information they legally are not allowed. However, if this is a laptop you have purchased yourself to use for work. It could still in theory be considered a personal device. If you can appeal or apply again for the discharge, if you have not already done so. If there has been no breaches of the SHPO in the last 6 years include it in your application. You could even consider applying to amend the SHPO instead of discharging it as there is no limit to how many times, if a judge agrees amendments should be made. They can either accept the changes or see fit to discharge it entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 70,
Visits: 486
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? The CPR says the judge can make a decision without a hearing, only if the law in question allows them to. The SOA only allows this if you are less than 5 years in and the police object. Since you are at 6 years that does not apply. But in any case the following paragraph says they MUST allow you to make representations, INCLUDING representations about whether or not there should be a hearing. see Para 16(b). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b99428cc8356c3c882aac6/crim-proc-rules-2025-part-31.docOne other thing. Before looking at solicitors you might want to consider the Citizens Advice Bureau. They cannot represent you at court, but they will be able to help you in setting out your arguments for the court. Thank you for that it is what I have been looking at as well so just confirms to me I am right and the judge shouldn't have dismissed it without a hearing. I will look into the Citizens Advice Bureau and see what they can offer me. I have raised this with the court and they are going to get back to me (at court pace that could be a fair time!)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 865,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost? The CPR says the judge can make a decision without a hearing, only if the law in question allows them to. The SOA only allows this if you are less than 5 years in and the police object. Since you are at 6 years that does not apply. But in any case the following paragraph says they MUST allow you to make representations, INCLUDING representations about whether or not there should be a hearing. see Para 16(b). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b99428cc8356c3c882aac6/crim-proc-rules-2025-part-31.docOne other thing. Before looking at solicitors you might want to consider the Citizens Advice Bureau. They cannot represent you at court, but they will be able to help you in setting out your arguments for the court.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 70,
Visits: 486
|
+x+x+x+xI have an internet SHPO and have applied to the court to have it discharged. I expected a hearing so that I could put across my arguments. The police disagree with my application but I feel their arguments are weak and that they have made a statement to the court which is factually correct but written in such a way to paint me in a bad light. For example they mention alerts that have occurred on my devices and have implied I am doing something wrong to cause these and therefore the SHPO and monitoring software needs to remain to monitor me. I have only been made aware of 2 of these alerts both of which were dismissed by my offender manager as not requiring any further action. They were trigged by a picture of my own children as a desktop background and an invoicing package that I use for work purposes. I am sure the other alerts must be false as well otherwise they would have taken action. Today the judge has refused the application saying a hearing is not required and as my offender manager has concerns he is refusing the application. Is it correct a judge can just dismiss without a hearing. He quoted CPR 31.5 (4) for him to be allowed to do it but I have looked at this and the next section CPR 31.5 (5) suggests he can't do this unless I have had a chance to make representations at a hearing. The whole reason I want to do this is so I can get my conviction spent and move on with my life. I know it is a battle if the police don't agree but I have changed so much since my conviction, I am no longer the same person I was back then. I am not a risk to the public and believe I can prove this. I thought this is what criteria they were looking for. Did you have a solicitor / barrister involved? Since you made the application to the courts, you should have been given every chance to produce evidence as to why the SHPO should be discharged, you can normally include a lot info and evidence with in the application. It is then down to the police to provide their evidence and reasons as to why it should not be discharged. It seems to me you were just unfortunate to be given a Judge who simply was not interested in your application. I recall when I submitted my own application I went in quite a lot of detail, quoting the Smith ruling proving the restrictions on my SHPO were disproportionate, the contact restriction infringes on my rights to family life, how the SHPO its self was preventing me from a change of circumstances (finding work and training) The first Judge I had was not interested in my application, so my barrister pushed for me to obtain more evidence on my work history. I was then appointed a new Judge who was more fair and willing to hear my application. Since the Judge has made the decision to dismiss your application, you need to look into if you can appeal it, or if you can just reapply normally. I was told by my judge that applying for discharge is a one time deal. I don't have a barrister/solicitor involved. My application gave a lot of detail as to why it should be discharged. The fact I have changed and the impact it has on my work and personal life. Most importantly stressing the reasons why I am not a risk to the public. I did look at getting a solicitor but the cost was too high. But as part of the work to give me the quote she did look at my application and said it was pretty good with strong grounds for it to be dismissed. My concerns on this is I believe the police have not given the full facts to the judge in their statement (a copy of which I have never seen prior to the judge giving his ruling). They have mentioned alerts I have had on my devices but in the context that these were bad alerts when in fact they were false alerts. They have also stated that the monitoring software is imperative to manage me when in fact the software is only installed on the laptop I use for my business and not on my personal devices. I also believe I should have been given the opportunity to have a hearing in court. I was expecting this to happen before a ruling was given I am worried about not being able to submit another application, I have asked the court about this and pointed out my concerns above. I am not aware of any rules preventing someone from applying more than once to have an SHPO discharged. The only test would be, has there been a change in circumstances since the previous application? But really this is about whether or not the judge correctly interpreted the CPR. I agree that they did not, so that should be grounds for an appeal in any case. Thanks it does look like the CPR was not interpreted correctly. His conclusion was that he could do it without a hearing because he had all the information to hand but I think he can only do this if he is to approve the discharge. In any other case a hearing should be allowed. If I do get to a hearing I may look into a solicitor to represent me. The quote I had last time was £5000 plus VAT but this seemed really steep. Does anyone know if this sounds reasonable or is it a high sky cost?
|
|
|
|