|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 873,
Visits: 7.1K
|
+x+xGenerally 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 Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled. My question would be, how long is an appeal going to take, versus making another application to the resident judge in say 6 months time? When it comes to abuse of the process, I get why making an application within a few days of the last one being refused would be seen as abuse, but then how long do you have to wait? 6 months? 12 months? Going to the court of appeal is going to be costly and not likely to be over quickly. I would give it 6 months minimum and apply again. Plenty of things could happen in that time. The judge might retire for example, or they may just forget all about you. # It may also be worthwhile using your time now to discuss with the PPU why they are objecting. If you can get them to agree you are not a risk, then the judge will almost certainly discharge the SHPO next time. I know that people dislike them and often the relationship is hostile, but you have nothing to lose by doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 73,
Visits: 500
|
+xHi Richie, I hope it goes well. I applied for discharge a few years ago and had similarly frustrating experience. It wasn't thrown out but the outcome wasn't great either. I echo what everyone else has said, I got a SAR and submitted all the positives, I had no breaches etc and this was 6/7 years after conviction. Have a think about what to say if you're speaking, don't make excuses or slag off police (which is so tempting) - purely be positive about yourself and dig deep into the HOW you've changed. As you can imagine a lot of people say they've changed and when it comes down to having pressure applied, haven't truly changed at all. When it came to the police, they only agreed to one change before the hearing. However, their representation in court didn't talk about post-conviction at all, he just went over the original offending and the images etc. I was surprised how negative they were and it was unhelpful because as far as we're concerned we're here to talk about life post-convictioon, not feel as if we're on trial all over again. This might just be my force, they're particularly negative. All in all the judge agreed to the one change but didn't really explain why he wouldn't fully discharge it. I did hire a barrister and they explained I have no kids, I've held down my self-employed work, all annual notifications done on time, unannounced visits etc I explained being unspent for this length was relentless and achieving nothing but extra financial burden in already difficult times and unneccesary disclosures (bane of my life), but it all seemingly wasn't good enough. I think judges are reluctant to go against what another judge has decided but I know there have been successes documented on here. As with every area, there just seems to be inconsistencies everywhere. So I would suggest proceed with hope and caution. If your SHPO as it stands is managable for the duration, as difficult as we all know they are, things won't get worse, but anything more positive will be a huge bonus. Thank you for your supportive words. It is not the SHPO itself that bothers me, I don't really care about having my devices monitored/checked and having to register new devices. The big issue for me is that Conviction would be spent in March next year if I can get the SHPO discharged. At the moment having to declare my conviction creates many hurdles for me especially around running a business with my partner. It is impossible to get anyone to insure the business which leaves us open to potential risks, it also means we can't employ anyone as I can not get employers liability insurance for them which is a legal requirement. This means we are doing the jobs of around 4 people and desperately need the help. It also means our whole business has to be run from home as I can't get a business unit to run it from (insurance and background checks) which means family and work life often collides. There are the normal things like personal insurance etc having to get higher quotes. When I was convicted I was a different person, I was under a lot of stress I had a recent family bereavement and I was not acting like myself. Wind on a few years and I am a different person, not under the same sort of stress and I am myself. I can talk to people about my family about my problems. There is no way I am going to return to the place that caused my offending. I have too much to lose if I offend again, I have a business I have built up and my family who forgave me once but I know a second time that is not going to happen. I have completed all the courses they have asked me to, I have complied with every part of the registration process. I have been patient with the police even when I believe they are being unreasonable and difficult. My risk level has come down from high when I was first convicted to low now. What is annoying about a SHPO is that it means your conviction can never be spent whilst it is active, however you can be on the SOR and your conviction is spent.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 475,
Visits: 5.7K
|
Hi Richie, I hope it goes well. I applied for discharge a few years ago and had similarly frustrating experience. It wasn't thrown out but the outcome wasn't great either.
I echo what everyone else has said, I got a SAR and submitted all the positives, I had no breaches etc and this was 6/7 years after conviction. Have a think about what to say if you're speaking, don't make excuses or slag off police (which is so tempting) - purely be positive about yourself and dig deep into the HOW you've changed. As you can imagine a lot of people say they've changed and when it comes down to having pressure applied, haven't truly changed at all.
When it came to the police, they only agreed to one change before the hearing. However, their representation in court didn't talk about post-conviction at all, he just went over the original offending and the images etc. I was surprised how negative they were and it was unhelpful because as far as we're concerned we're here to talk about life post-convictioon, not feel as if we're on trial all over again. This might just be my force, they're particularly negative.
All in all the judge agreed to the one change but didn't really explain why he wouldn't fully discharge it. I did hire a barrister and they explained I have no kids, I've held down my self-employed work, all annual notifications done on time, unannounced visits etc I explained being unspent for this length was relentless and achieving nothing but extra financial burden in already difficult times and unneccesary disclosures (bane of my life), but it all seemingly wasn't good enough.
I think judges are reluctant to go against what another judge has decided but I know there have been successes documented on here. As with every area, there just seems to be inconsistencies everywhere.
So I would suggest proceed with hope and caution. If your SHPO as it stands is managable for the duration, as difficult as we all know they are, things won't get worse, but anything more positive will be a huge bonus.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 73,
Visits: 500
|
+xGenerally 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 Thanks I have looked at the appeal router and there is a cost to this. I haven't made any decision which way to act yet but I am aware I only have 21 days after the decision to appeal. I am hoping to be able to get some legal advice this week as well. I didn't realise courts had a resident judge so can understand it could annoy them if they saw the same application again especially if I am complaining about the way it was handled.
|
|
|
|
|
Evan Davis
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 87,
Visits: 3.2K
|
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: 73,
Visits: 500
|
+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: 420,
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: 73,
Visits: 500
|
+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: 873,
Visits: 7.1K
|
+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: 73,
Visits: 500
|
+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?
|
|
|
|