SHPO wording interpretation
Notifications OFF
My partner has just finished his licence but has a continuing SHPO in place. The way we both interpret the wording is that he can not have unsupervised contact with any female under 17 without their parents being informed of his prior convictions. The way we read it is that this would mean. so long as he is not unsupervised then we would not legally need to disclose. His previous probation officer also agreed with this interpretation. However, he has a new police contact from the sex offenders team who has said their interpretation of the SHPO is that he still cannot have ANY contact with any female under 17, even with parents being aware or other adults being present. Practically, it actually makes little difference to our day to day lives. However, if the police have the wrong interpretation it would seem to impose unnecessary and possibly unlawful and unfair limitations on our lives e.g if invited to a wedding or gathering we still couldn't attend unless we disclosed to everyone. I would always stay with him on such an occasion if we were to go to something like that. It's not the kind of thing that would happen very often to be honest, and we want to always make sure we are abiding by the conditions. But it seems unfair if the police might be imposing something in excess to what is legally intended. A) does anyone know if SHPOs have standard wording and where we might find the legal definitions used? B) has anyone had cause to question the police interpretation of such conditions? We're wary of questioning the new police contact in case it makes the relationship difficult, but also don't feel comfortable accepting limitations if they are based on their moral judgement rather than the actual law. Sorry for the long post but appreciate any views from anyone whose had a similar dilemma.
Evening Iris
I cannot give much useful information but I would recommend the unlock website they could perhaps offer valuable information for you
I hope you can get this resolved so you both have some clarity x
I cannot give much useful information but I would recommend the unlock website they could perhaps offer valuable information for you
I hope you can get this resolved so you both have some clarity x
Hi,
Either unlock or the solicitor you used to go through the court process would be able to answer this. They are the experts. We have the same condition so it'd be interesting to hear the outcome.
My bet is you are right! As long as it diez3bt say that the parent needs to be 'aware and informed' then I think you'll be able to supervise with no disclosure.
Good luck x
Either unlock or the solicitor you used to go through the court process would be able to answer this. They are the experts. We have the same condition so it'd be interesting to hear the outcome.
My bet is you are right! As long as it diez3bt say that the parent needs to be 'aware and informed' then I think you'll be able to supervise with no disclosure.
Good luck x
Hey Iris,
Definitely confirm with a solicitor and Unlock. The Police, in my experience, cannot be trusted to carry out tasks a 6 year old could understand! X
Definitely confirm with a solicitor and Unlock. The Police, in my experience, cannot be trusted to carry out tasks a 6 year old could understand! X
The police, in my experience, can overstep and go overboard.
My partner has a condition that says 'no contact' with an under 16 unless parents are made aware of his conviction AND social services are ok with it. We unfortunately didn't interpret this correctly as we thought as long as I supervised my partner was ok around my cousin as we only see them at family events.
It wasn't until a few weeks before my partner's suspended sentence was over that the police and probation flagged up my partner had been at family events and not followed the condition. What annoyed me was they didn't check with me the under 16s in my family- surely it would have been the first thing to do when convicted.
We had to disclose to my aunt and uncle, it went ok and SS have no issues. The next issue was the police wanted us to disclose to my other family members with infant children. I am not close to them and can easily avoid them being around my partner. But the police argued 'what if' we came in contact. We got some legal advice that said 'what if' is too much of a stretch and police were over stepping.
In the end we agree that if my partner does bump into them we will make our excuses to leave and inform the police. The police also heavily suggested I tell my mum and step dad, even tho there is absolutely 0 legal need. I did in the end because I was so worried I would have to disclose to my cousins and the fall out was going to be huge.
Finally, my partner and I went on holiday to Scotland. Gave the police plenty of notice. A week before the holiday, with family that don't know about the conviction, we were told the local Scottish police were concerned because the place we were staying was close to a school. Bearing in mind there is no restriction on the distance my partner can be to a school. They threatened to do a surprise visit! Thankfully they didn't.
Overall my advice is to get a clear interpretation from a solicitor and if they agree the police are being over the top to push back. If they don't like the wording of the condition they can go to courts I believe to get it changed. But they need good justification.
My partner has a condition that says 'no contact' with an under 16 unless parents are made aware of his conviction AND social services are ok with it. We unfortunately didn't interpret this correctly as we thought as long as I supervised my partner was ok around my cousin as we only see them at family events.
It wasn't until a few weeks before my partner's suspended sentence was over that the police and probation flagged up my partner had been at family events and not followed the condition. What annoyed me was they didn't check with me the under 16s in my family- surely it would have been the first thing to do when convicted.
We had to disclose to my aunt and uncle, it went ok and SS have no issues. The next issue was the police wanted us to disclose to my other family members with infant children. I am not close to them and can easily avoid them being around my partner. But the police argued 'what if' we came in contact. We got some legal advice that said 'what if' is too much of a stretch and police were over stepping.
In the end we agree that if my partner does bump into them we will make our excuses to leave and inform the police. The police also heavily suggested I tell my mum and step dad, even tho there is absolutely 0 legal need. I did in the end because I was so worried I would have to disclose to my cousins and the fall out was going to be huge.
Finally, my partner and I went on holiday to Scotland. Gave the police plenty of notice. A week before the holiday, with family that don't know about the conviction, we were told the local Scottish police were concerned because the place we were staying was close to a school. Bearing in mind there is no restriction on the distance my partner can be to a school. They threatened to do a surprise visit! Thankfully they didn't.
Overall my advice is to get a clear interpretation from a solicitor and if they agree the police are being over the top to push back. If they don't like the wording of the condition they can go to courts I believe to get it changed. But they need good justification.
Hi magestic,
We have a holiday booked to Wales in a couple of months time. Checked with probation and police and they said absolutely no issues at all. I'm really worried now that what happened to you could happen to us also. Did you get the green light off probation and police for the holiday in advance?
thanks xx
We have a holiday booked to Wales in a couple of months time. Checked with probation and police and they said absolutely no issues at all. I'm really worried now that what happened to you could happen to us also. Did you get the green light off probation and police for the holiday in advance?
thanks xx
We had approval early on but I'm not sure when my police liaison got in touch with the local police in Scotland. Our police liaison only told us a week before the trip, too late to cancel, and she seems quite apologetic. She wasn't able to say for for ifbthe Scottish police would turn up or not.
I would ask your police contact when they will get in touch with the Welsh police. But you should be fine if where you are staying are not close to a school or place where children will be. There was a school down the road from us and I guess that raises alarms, even though there is nothing anywhere to say my partner can't be in a certain distance to a school. We live nearby to two schools anyway and had no issues.
I would ask your police contact when they will get in touch with the Welsh police. But you should be fine if where you are staying are not close to a school or place where children will be. There was a school down the road from us and I guess that raises alarms, even though there is nothing anywhere to say my partner can't be in a certain distance to a school. We live nearby to two schools anyway and had no issues.
Are all SHPO orders l like this?
I know my brother has a SHPO for 5 years
They are planning to move home, they have been on holiday abroad, well one of their ideas is to sell and then either buy or rent another place before fully moving abroad
He can do all of this very easily and has been to a family funeral, he says when he moves he just pops into a police station within 3 days to update the address and probation say no issues,
When I read comments above I do get confused, I would have thought a SHPO to have more serious restrictions. Is a "SHPO" all the same as each other or are some more strict than others?
I know my brother has a SHPO for 5 years
They are planning to move home, they have been on holiday abroad, well one of their ideas is to sell and then either buy or rent another place before fully moving abroad
He can do all of this very easily and has been to a family funeral, he says when he moves he just pops into a police station within 3 days to update the address and probation say no issues,
When I read comments above I do get confused, I would have thought a SHPO to have more serious restrictions. Is a "SHPO" all the same as each other or are some more strict than others?
The requirements to report addresses and travelling/staying in places for more than 7 nights are from the SOR, I believe SORs are all the same for sex offenders. SHPOs are generally more tailored to the offender.
As long as an offender complies with their SOR and SHPO they should not worry. But as I said above sometimes the police can over step
As long as an offender complies with their SOR and SHPO they should not worry. But as I said above sometimes the police can over step
Does everyone get a SOR and a SHPO?
I believe anyone with a sex offence (including no further action taken or caution, but I could be wrong) is put on the SOR. The length of time depends on the sentence. Typically can be 5 years, ten years, or indefinitely.
I have seen that not everyone gets a SHPO but 9/10 they do. The SOR is what info an offender has to declare to the police, the SHPO are restrictions. E.g. on SOR offenders must disclose their address, SHPO would say offenders cannot delete files unless checked by the police.
I have seen that not everyone gets a SHPO but 9/10 they do. The SOR is what info an offender has to declare to the police, the SHPO are restrictions. E.g. on SOR offenders must disclose their address, SHPO would say offenders cannot delete files unless checked by the police.
Lee, sounds like double dipping to me.
Lee
I mean the police have already done their thing, with the SRO it seems they're coming back to have another go...
Sorry, I find my situation so awful, I often try to to find some humour in it to lighten things up a little. Even though it's not funny at all.
I mean the police have already done their thing, with the SRO it seems they're coming back to have another go...
Sorry, I find my situation so awful, I often try to to find some humour in it to lighten things up a little. Even though it's not funny at all.
Lee it seems to me that at least some of the folk arrested and convicted of these offences are low hanging fruit for the police and that the police and other agencies could have far greater impact if they did some harder work (a) to remove a lot of this stuff from online so it can't be accessed, and (b) did some awareness raising of how easy it is to cross the line from not offending (eg viewing legitimate porn or online chat about sex with adults) to offending (viewing illegal material or chatting about sex with under 18s).