Hello,

My person's offence was images, no communication, but his SHPO is worded the same regarding to contact with under 16s (or 18, can't remember). No option for having that removed, it wasn't mentioned. My person has told me that in time the police can remove bits from it, not sure if that's accurate. Sorry, not sure if that helps, but does seem pretty standard.

My OH's draft SHPO stated "Unreasonably failing to provide information to a representative of the Chief Constable for the appropriate area as requested by them to ensure his risk may be properly managed in the community; such information will include details of contact with family and friends to ensure the protection of children."

However at sentencing the solicitor asked the judge to review this as it was too ambiguous and judge agreed and said it was not only ambiguous but completely unenforceable and therefore it was removed completely.

So the final SHPO is now only internet/device based. My OH was image/online only too.



So I would say definitely challenge it at sentencing. At least try and get the social services bit removed, I know someone whose OH has the same wording in theirs (this is ref a communication offence) and social are being particularly difficult, they are now going back to court to try and get it removed from the SHPO, as like you they deem in disproportionate.

It does blow my mind how there appears to be no consistency in terms of restrictions, sentences, even socials approach with regards this type of offence though.

Hope that helps

Once the sentencing is over, an SHPO cannot be changed without going back to court.

So it is important to instruct your barrister to challenge all the conditions that you think are disproportionate. They will do this as part of the sentencing hearing.

Hi, My understanding is that case law was changed - there's a case that our solicitor mentioned to us and was cited in court, Dewy 2024. It challenged disproportionate SHPO conditions for image-only offences. So I think, post this case, a SHPO for image offences 'only' can't have restrictions around contact.

Post deleted by user

Yes, sadly lazy cut and paste SHPOs (and SROs) are common. As Saint Jude says there is now case law for image only offences. Your legal team should be challenging these contact clauses for you.

Good luck x

Please instruct your solicitor or barrister to challenge quoting the relevant case law. This restriction should not be in there for image only offences

Clearly I'm in the minority here, but if your child were to be in the company of someone that had been charged with only 'online image offences' against children, would you not want to know?

Surely these conditions under the SHPO are in place to protect children?

We challenged and the no contact with u18's without parents and SS being advised was removed.

We still have not to enter or remain in a household where u18s are present, but I wish I had challenged that too as it's a bit of a pain although not impossible.

It means we can attend family events (weddings/funerals etc).

the grandkids have been okd by SS and parents and they are really the only children he has any contact with anyway.

Throwawayww90

The SHPO does not affect the police common law powers of disclosure. They can still disclose the persons conviction, to the parents of any child that the person has contact with.

I wish I'd known the under 18s thing could be challenged however my person has no need for contact with under 18s currently so it's pretty easy for him to adhere too. But a potentially unnecessary stress, I feel panicked when with him and around children in every day life such as shopping, or a cafe, due to the SHPO currently

Throwaway - before I was in this situation yes I would have shared your view. But knowing what I know now and having looked in detail at this kind of offending and the research, I believe it's really complex and there are a range of factors at play leading lots of youngsters/ men into terrible spaces online who do not have sexually preferences for children, and the research shows a very small percentage of online offenders go on to contact offences, even less so when they get the right support and education. In our case our son is being investigated for offences when he himself was under 18, with a range of vulnerabilities and easily influenced, and viewing images of people of similar age, but as he's now 18 he is treated the same as an adult despite the fact he's been a victim himself to a degree and it's complicated when viewing under 18s as a minor yourself. His peers are 17/18, siblings teenagers, and he's stripped of all ability to see anyone or live at home and have any kind of normal life under the bail conditions, even though he's yet to be charged with anything. That doesn't seem proportionate to me. And I believe he, and others in similar scenarios, deserves a second chance at life. That would be very difficult for him at this age if similar conditions are in place under a SHPO. Appreciate every situation is different and carries different levels of risk but at the very least there should be a consistent approach to assessing risk and managing it across services and offenders. By stigmatising the subject and castigating every offender in the same way as automatically a danger to children we are not able to openly talk about how and why this is happening online at such scale.

Their solicitor can contest it. There is usually a reason why theyve put restrictions on the SHPO which is quiet common. My husband doesnt have restrictions in his SHPO but we are 3 months post sentence and still living with restrictions because we need SS happy. Just because its not there doesnt mean you can go back to unsupervised contact, SS would have concerns.

@ Throwaway I'm with you 100%.