SHPOs
Notifications OFFI guess it's all risk-based and they don't know whether he's likely to go on to commit a contact offence but hasn't someone come up with some statistics about the likihood and it's very low?
Wouldn't that suggest that real world restrictions are disproportionate? The punishment should fit the crime so I get the requirement to monitor his internet usage but anything else connected to real people seems wholly unnecessary and hugely excessive.
Has anyone got any experience of their solicitor negotiating the proposed terms of the SHPO to something more proporationate?
However, the updated 2024 guidance now categorises both indecent images of children (IIOC) offences and online sexual communication offences as indirect offences, recognising the distinction between online communication and physical contact behaviour. Despite this reclassification, SHPO conditions imposed in cases involving online sexual communication offences do not consistently reflect this change. In practice, many orders continue to mirror those historically applied to contact offenders, without sufficient individualised consideration of risk, proportionality, or the nature of the index offence.
My sons conviction is for sexual communication and his SHPO has the 'no unsupervised contact with under 18's unless agreed by children's services and the parents' restriction in it.
He ensures he never has unsupervised contact with children but following assessments by Children’s Services and his Offender Manager, it has been agreed that he is now able to care for and parent his own children unsupervised for one day per week. This progression reflects the professional view that the current level of risk is manageable and that appropriate safeguards are in place.
This phased approach ensures that any increase in responsibility is carefully monitored and remains proportionate to assessed risk with the intention that it will be gradually increase over time.
The police powers to disclose to parents of other children for example, exist outside of the SHPO and they cannot be changed.
She contested the terms in court and, despite the prosecution insisting that it was proportionate, the magistrates agreed with our solicitor.
We ended up with him not being allowed to enter or remain in a household with anyone under 18, rather than a complete blanket no contact.
This meant we can go to family events and, as long as it's not within a household setting (pub, hotel, church etc all fine) then it's fine.
With the grandkids we ok'd with SS and my daughter so we can have them at the house and we can go to theirs.
If you think it's disproportionate then it's worth asking your solicitor/barrister to argue it