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.

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 6 years into my SHPO with 4 left to run

Are you still within the first 5 years of the SHPO?

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 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.