Advice please
Notifications OFF
My OH has internet restrictions on his SHPO but he also has that he cannot work with under 18's in any capacity. I read in a post somewhere that this maybe not right as it was for images only and no contact. Does anyone know if we can challenge this? My OH is suicidal and cannot deal with anything and will not question anything the police say. The problem this is hard to get a job which we now need him to get guaranteeing never to be contact with an under 18.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Hi,
I'm not sure about challenging the SHPO as it's not something we have done. Are you post sentencing? If you are and he has a visor already assigned you can ask them for clarification on this.
My person has been looking for work since sentencing 20 months ago. He has found that most ask about unspent convictions. He is now looking at nights jobs as under 18s aren't allowed to work nights so hopefully employers will look at it objectively and realise that there is no risk in an adult only environment. If your OH is looking for work now it may be worth looking at the nights temporary roles in supermarkets. If he drives or rides a bike he could look at delivery jobs for Uber or deliveroo. My persons probation officer spent the first 14 months telling him he needed to disclose at interview even if they didn't ask. This was incorrect but by the time she acknowledged this he had talked himself out of at least 5 jobs that he'd got to second interview at and were good jobs in the same field he was in before. He's also found that recruitment agencies round here have the question of unspent convictions as standard on their forms so getting factory or warehouse work is treated in the same way as an office job.
Im sorry I can't offer more positivity but definitely tell him to look at the temporary roles or delivery if he is able to. My person can't drive due to medical conditions and he never learnt to ride a bike so sadly delivery is not an option for him xxx
I'm not sure about challenging the SHPO as it's not something we have done. Are you post sentencing? If you are and he has a visor already assigned you can ask them for clarification on this.
My person has been looking for work since sentencing 20 months ago. He has found that most ask about unspent convictions. He is now looking at nights jobs as under 18s aren't allowed to work nights so hopefully employers will look at it objectively and realise that there is no risk in an adult only environment. If your OH is looking for work now it may be worth looking at the nights temporary roles in supermarkets. If he drives or rides a bike he could look at delivery jobs for Uber or deliveroo. My persons probation officer spent the first 14 months telling him he needed to disclose at interview even if they didn't ask. This was incorrect but by the time she acknowledged this he had talked himself out of at least 5 jobs that he'd got to second interview at and were good jobs in the same field he was in before. He's also found that recruitment agencies round here have the question of unspent convictions as standard on their forms so getting factory or warehouse work is treated in the same way as an office job.
Im sorry I can't offer more positivity but definitely tell him to look at the temporary roles or delivery if he is able to. My person can't drive due to medical conditions and he never learnt to ride a bike so sadly delivery is not an option for him xxx
You can challenge the SHPO by going back to court. Unlock would probably be a good place to start with understanding how that works, try calling their helpline.
You are correct in that the SHPO must be relevant to the offence. They do like to slap the no contact clause in there when arguably it shouldn't be.
The SHPO should be smith compliant, it sounds like potentially your persons is not. From a quick scan, no under 18s is given if the offender was in a position of trust otherwise it should be 16. You may have more luck asking for an amendment to 16 rather than getting it removed entirely. A solicitor should be able to review advise further.
You are correct in that the SHPO must be relevant to the offence. They do like to slap the no contact clause in there when arguably it shouldn't be.
The SHPO should be smith compliant, it sounds like potentially your persons is not. From a quick scan, no under 18s is given if the offender was in a position of trust otherwise it should be 16. You may have more luck asking for an amendment to 16 rather than getting it removed entirely. A solicitor should be able to review advise further.
Thank you, will pass on your advice to my OH. Crossing fingers he finds a job soon as he was on a really good wage beofe this happened, so we are now struggling. Worked out i would be financially better off if we separated. Not sure that is fair, but hey ho.
mj173 what does is smith compliant mean?
thank you lost and distressed will take your advice. It is so hard as he wont ask anything as he is scared he will ask the wrong question. He is post sentencing.
mj173 what does is smith compliant mean?
thank you lost and distressed will take your advice. It is so hard as he wont ask anything as he is scared he will ask the wrong question. He is post sentencing.
There's details about 'smith compliant' on the CPS website here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-ancillary-orders
If there's conditions that don't meet that you have good grounds to take it back to court.
My husband was slapped with an indefinite SHPO which is most likely not Smith Compliant, as they have to have good reason to do that. So he plans to go back to court when he had what would be 1 year left on his SOR to get it amended to end at the same time as the SOR ends. The barrister picked up that they added no contact with under 18s on the day and not under 16s and had that changed, but not the indefinite and I didn't know then what I know now.
Hope that helps
If there's conditions that don't meet that you have good grounds to take it back to court.
My husband was slapped with an indefinite SHPO which is most likely not Smith Compliant, as they have to have good reason to do that. So he plans to go back to court when he had what would be 1 year left on his SOR to get it amended to end at the same time as the SOR ends. The barrister picked up that they added no contact with under 18s on the day and not under 16s and had that changed, but not the indefinite and I didn't know then what I know now.
Hope that helps
Thank you mj173. That is great, it appears as my OH should not have had that restriction. Just another thing that has gone wrong with his case.