+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
Re travelling once no longer high risk and never had a green notice issued - on that basis presumably the other country has no knowledge of the offence. Is that right, or is there more I should be thinking of?
We can very strongly presume that yes. Unless there are ad hoc / informal channels involved. Evidence: I entered the USA recently, off register, despite having been green noticed all over the place while on register. That’s really interesting. Are you able to comment on the US visa process? (I appreciate this is at least 9.5 years away for me!) I just said "no" on the "Esta" (Visa waiver online form), to the question about criminal history. This was the truth, as it said something about " ...arrested for a crime that led to injury or destruction of property". A funny qualifier, as a bank robbery may not even do that. You could say it's still a lie in spirit, but then again so is criminal record expiry generally, as it is a deliberate rugsweeping of historical fact. In fact, so is the withholding of green notices. I sailed through like nobody's business. 48 hours after dropping off the register. On the same passport known to the PPU. I went via Ireland, as they do the pre-clearance checks so if it all goes wrong, it goes wrong on Irish soil, and you don't get wrapped in tin foil and made to sleep in a cage with the bandidos. Another advantage is that i'm not Googlable within Europe (e.g. by border guards inside Europe), having invoked the Right to be Forgotten thingy. I also carried a blank criminal record check with me in among a heap of identity documents. (warning: speculation ahead)
I also tend to believe that I would have successfully entered the USA a week earlier while ON the register, IF I had made it an impromptu second port of call (i.e. if all tangible planning for the USA trip had happened while already abroad). But that's a pet theory on this forum, which depends on several factors, and a bit of a digression and speculation. I also half-believe that I would have successfully entered the USA travelling direct from UK while still medium risk on register. But the reason being the general disinterested attitude of the PPU - I just couldn't imagine them scrambling to alert anyone about me. It is not the PPU that make the decision to alert someone. That would be the NCA and unless you were considered high risk they had no reason to issue a green notice. Hello, This is my first post and I am currently trying to work out where I stand. I had a custodial sentence, released early and have recently finished my probation. I know I currently sit at 'medium' risk, this won't be going down anytime soon as, although I do acknowledge wrongdoing on my part my convictions are wrong (long story - don't get me started on that) and as I wont state that I am completely guilty of what is in the paperwork getting the score down is challenging. I would love to travel abroad in the near future (there is a long distance hiking trail somewhere sunny I've always wanted to do), and was interested in the statement that green notices are only issued to people who are 'high risk'. Do we know if this is fact, just experience or assumption? Thanks in advance The guidelines say they have to be issued for very high risk and high risk offenders. Those on medium risk and low risk are judged on a case by case basis. So it is possible you can get a green notice if you are medium risk although less likely. See more here https://www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders/travelling-abroad Thank you for this Richard. It's all really frustrating that all this is a clear as mud. The section regarding passport renewals is really interesting and may explain why my passport renewal is taking longer than expected. It also raises the very valid point regarding the purpose of reporting new passport details via a SOR declaration if they already know them. I was also aware of people who were returned to prison for not declaring new bank details to the police - it makes you think that the only reason the reporting procedures are there is to catch people out to lock them up - and not to 'keep people safe' as they claim.
|