Outcome of court
Notifications OFF
I wanted to post an update as we had court this week.
My OH charges were 5 IIOC Cat A and 2 IIOC cat B, with 16 indicative searches, dating from 2019 (arrested early 2023, admitted no offending from early 2020 onwards, all offending being within a 1 year period.
2nd interview was July-ish, CPS came back in September, and charges were made, plea hearing mid October (guilty), sentencing end November
He was in front of a district judge in magistrates court
Sentenced to 3 year community order, iHorizon course, 100 hours community service and a relatively small fine.
The probation report recommended an SHPO for 5 years with online/device only restrictions, but then recommended a separate prohibition order preventing any contact with under 18s which was a huge shock. Our solicitor argued hard on this and got the prohibition order struck down but everyone, please watch out for this as it's very sneaky as it's not part of the SHPO and would prevent him ever moving home or going to normal places where young people might be, and lots of workplaces would be ruled out.
He is back in February for an SHPO hearing as the judge wasn't sure whether to make one or not, although said he probably will - worth a shot even if it does delay the conviction being spent by a few months of one is made.
The day was horrendous as the probation officer had made multiple serious mistakes in her report including attaching someone else's criminal history to him; going so far as to edit the date of birth on the record to match my OHs! This massively heightened his risk. Our solicitor asked for an adjournment for corrections to be made but the judge was in a foul mood and refused. However he did say he would accept him as a man of good character and that the letters of support were in line with this.
The prosecution solicitor was very unprofessional; had read none of the papers and his phone went off twice during the hearing. I think this wound the judge up quite a bit. He also made mistakes about the number of images and said images had been found on 15 devices when it was 1! So considering the total mess of all of that, I think we were very lucky to get the outcome we did.
We got back from court to find an email from his employer sacking him. All in all I'm a wreck today and grateful our little boy is with grandparents so I can stay with my OH and hold him together as best as possible
I hope everyone had a better week than us! I am trying to be grateful, and bought a little guardian angel to go on my Christmas tree in hope that next year will bring some stability
My OH charges were 5 IIOC Cat A and 2 IIOC cat B, with 16 indicative searches, dating from 2019 (arrested early 2023, admitted no offending from early 2020 onwards, all offending being within a 1 year period.
2nd interview was July-ish, CPS came back in September, and charges were made, plea hearing mid October (guilty), sentencing end November
He was in front of a district judge in magistrates court
Sentenced to 3 year community order, iHorizon course, 100 hours community service and a relatively small fine.
The probation report recommended an SHPO for 5 years with online/device only restrictions, but then recommended a separate prohibition order preventing any contact with under 18s which was a huge shock. Our solicitor argued hard on this and got the prohibition order struck down but everyone, please watch out for this as it's very sneaky as it's not part of the SHPO and would prevent him ever moving home or going to normal places where young people might be, and lots of workplaces would be ruled out.
He is back in February for an SHPO hearing as the judge wasn't sure whether to make one or not, although said he probably will - worth a shot even if it does delay the conviction being spent by a few months of one is made.
The day was horrendous as the probation officer had made multiple serious mistakes in her report including attaching someone else's criminal history to him; going so far as to edit the date of birth on the record to match my OHs! This massively heightened his risk. Our solicitor asked for an adjournment for corrections to be made but the judge was in a foul mood and refused. However he did say he would accept him as a man of good character and that the letters of support were in line with this.
The prosecution solicitor was very unprofessional; had read none of the papers and his phone went off twice during the hearing. I think this wound the judge up quite a bit. He also made mistakes about the number of images and said images had been found on 15 devices when it was 1! So considering the total mess of all of that, I think we were very lucky to get the outcome we did.
We got back from court to find an email from his employer sacking him. All in all I'm a wreck today and grateful our little boy is with grandparents so I can stay with my OH and hold him together as best as possible
I hope everyone had a better week than us! I am trying to be grateful, and bought a little guardian angel to go on my Christmas tree in hope that next year will bring some stability
Oh wow!! I have no words. How can they attach the wrong report!!! That's shocking. Your time line matches ours...
glad it's over for you (nearly) but what a nightmare, you had! we argued the SOPO as the police but 20 on it (just a copy and paste job totally). The judge came in before we went into court and added to the system a new SHPO with 6. He also said the police have to wipe the phone and give it back! This is causing huge problems as the police have never been told this before.
Judge took the under 18 off as we argued he had been home since April (no bail conditions) with his sister and what if his sister wanted to text him! But she can live with him. Madness!!! It was dropped off. Judge said that he just wanted to put a small one on so that his devices where checked for 5 years and he was given support.
I'm sure the judge wasn't happy by the phone! You can't even turn your back on a judge without asking and our solicitor made sure all our phones where turned off. I was shocked by the prosecution hard prepared too. When we was in Magistrates. He mentioned my name more then my sons as I opened the door and spoke to them!! We had a district and she wasn't impressed. Crown she was a bit better.
im glad it's over for you, hopefully the judge will let the SHPO run concurrently with the SOR and reduce it to internet only.
im so sorry you had the email on the same day! Hopefully that's all the rubbish now and you can start to move on.
thank you for sharing with us.
hope you have a relaxing weekend.
glad it's over for you (nearly) but what a nightmare, you had! we argued the SOPO as the police but 20 on it (just a copy and paste job totally). The judge came in before we went into court and added to the system a new SHPO with 6. He also said the police have to wipe the phone and give it back! This is causing huge problems as the police have never been told this before.
Judge took the under 18 off as we argued he had been home since April (no bail conditions) with his sister and what if his sister wanted to text him! But she can live with him. Madness!!! It was dropped off. Judge said that he just wanted to put a small one on so that his devices where checked for 5 years and he was given support.
I'm sure the judge wasn't happy by the phone! You can't even turn your back on a judge without asking and our solicitor made sure all our phones where turned off. I was shocked by the prosecution hard prepared too. When we was in Magistrates. He mentioned my name more then my sons as I opened the door and spoke to them!! We had a district and she wasn't impressed. Crown she was a bit better.
im glad it's over for you, hopefully the judge will let the SHPO run concurrently with the SOR and reduce it to internet only.
im so sorry you had the email on the same day! Hopefully that's all the rubbish now and you can start to move on.
thank you for sharing with us.
hope you have a relaxing weekend.
How awful for you that you had to go through such a chaotic mess. The prosecution got some things wrong in my persons case and unfortunately for us it was this incorrect information that got printed by the media.
You are on the other side of sentencing now though and whilst it may take you some time to actually feel better and to stop that feeling of daily dread, life will gradually seem a little brighter. I wish you both all the very best.
You are on the other side of sentencing now though and whilst it may take you some time to actually feel better and to stop that feeling of daily dread, life will gradually seem a little brighter. I wish you both all the very best.
On my! I'm horrified (if not really surprised) that they made such a dreadful mistake with the paperwork.
Is it ok if I ask a couple of questions? On the charges, you listed "indicative searches". Is this actually a charge or aggrevating circumstances? It's just I've never seen that listed before.
The SHPO is worrying. How can anyone not go to where young people might be? Does that mean you can't go to the shops because there might be children shopping? Can't go the cinema unless it's an over 18? But then if the cinema is a multiplex showing a children's film, how does that work then? And I'm sure there are many other examples. It sounds impossible to comply with.
Why would it prevent him for moving home?
Hope you are able to do something nice for yourself this weekend x
Is it ok if I ask a couple of questions? On the charges, you listed "indicative searches". Is this actually a charge or aggrevating circumstances? It's just I've never seen that listed before.
The SHPO is worrying. How can anyone not go to where young people might be? Does that mean you can't go to the shops because there might be children shopping? Can't go the cinema unless it's an over 18? But then if the cinema is a multiplex showing a children's film, how does that work then? And I'm sure there are many other examples. It sounds impossible to comply with.
Why would it prevent him for moving home?
Hope you are able to do something nice for yourself this weekend x
We had similar issues. Wrong dob for my partner. Hos charge sheet had the wrong date for arrest which would have implied he offended after the arrest. Had his home address incorrect too.
It all seemed rushed and my partner's solicitor was useless. Didn't even argue the SHPO which has the no contact with under 16s, despite he is online offender. The solicitor only queried the under 16 clause in court and not before and the judge basically said it was too late. No one told my partner has could have appealed the SHPO, we thought to appeal you would have to appeal the whole sentence...
Unfortunately i didn't find this forum until a few months after sentencing. So I had no idea the u der 16clause isn't on all SHPOs.
My advice to all those facing a SHPO to make sure to go through it with a fine tooth comb with the solicitor and prepare any arguments, and if not resolved at sentencing to have it appealed ASAP.
My partner was sentenced four years ago, recently went to a solicitor to see if we can drop the under 16 clause at the five year mark, but we can't use the reasoning being he didn't know he could and should have appealed. To ha e it removed now would mean thousands of pounds on assessments (he has had a few done for family courts. It these can't be used as they were ordered under different courts and different set criteria).
For clarification on the clause, my partner cannot have contact with under 16s unless both parents and SS agree. Supervised or unsupervised. He can freely go to museums, zoo and other such attractions. He just can't speak to kids or directly interact with them.
Events like family or friends, work colleague get togethers is the main issue with this clause. The higher the risk someone can be left alone or interact with a child is what this clause limits.
So my partner can't go to weddings that are not adult only, can't go to funerals if kids could be there etc.
It all seemed rushed and my partner's solicitor was useless. Didn't even argue the SHPO which has the no contact with under 16s, despite he is online offender. The solicitor only queried the under 16 clause in court and not before and the judge basically said it was too late. No one told my partner has could have appealed the SHPO, we thought to appeal you would have to appeal the whole sentence...
Unfortunately i didn't find this forum until a few months after sentencing. So I had no idea the u der 16clause isn't on all SHPOs.
My advice to all those facing a SHPO to make sure to go through it with a fine tooth comb with the solicitor and prepare any arguments, and if not resolved at sentencing to have it appealed ASAP.
My partner was sentenced four years ago, recently went to a solicitor to see if we can drop the under 16 clause at the five year mark, but we can't use the reasoning being he didn't know he could and should have appealed. To ha e it removed now would mean thousands of pounds on assessments (he has had a few done for family courts. It these can't be used as they were ordered under different courts and different set criteria).
For clarification on the clause, my partner cannot have contact with under 16s unless both parents and SS agree. Supervised or unsupervised. He can freely go to museums, zoo and other such attractions. He just can't speak to kids or directly interact with them.
Events like family or friends, work colleague get togethers is the main issue with this clause. The higher the risk someone can be left alone or interact with a child is what this clause limits.
So my partner can't go to weddings that are not adult only, can't go to funerals if kids could be there etc.
I wrote my post in a bit of a rush so sorry if some things were not clear
With our SHPO, the prosecution recommended internet only restrictions plus a restriction about the number of devices he is allowed to own. Our solicitor is arguing that because the offending was almost 5 years ago, an SHPO isn't required at all and we go back in February about that. I doubt we will be successful but it's worth a go.
Separately, the probation officer writing the pre sentencing report decided the suggested SHPO wasn't restrictive enough and recommended a completely separate prohibition order stopping contact with under 18s. This seems like an unrestricted order and extremely harsh, broad ranging and difficult to interpret. It may be how the police/prosecution/probation try to get around the law now generally agreeing with SHPOs not having contact restrictions for online only offenders. To me this is a real worry. It was just a single line in the pre sentencing report and we didn't pick it up until the sentencing hearing so it was extremely stressful in court as our solicitor thought on his feet to get it dismissed
With our SHPO, the prosecution recommended internet only restrictions plus a restriction about the number of devices he is allowed to own. Our solicitor is arguing that because the offending was almost 5 years ago, an SHPO isn't required at all and we go back in February about that. I doubt we will be successful but it's worth a go.
Separately, the probation officer writing the pre sentencing report decided the suggested SHPO wasn't restrictive enough and recommended a completely separate prohibition order stopping contact with under 18s. This seems like an unrestricted order and extremely harsh, broad ranging and difficult to interpret. It may be how the police/prosecution/probation try to get around the law now generally agreeing with SHPOs not having contact restrictions for online only offenders. To me this is a real worry. It was just a single line in the pre sentencing report and we didn't pick it up until the sentencing hearing so it was extremely stressful in court as our solicitor thought on his feet to get it dismissed
Buckets, that's terrible! I honestly think the police just cut and paste a SHPO for everyone. All 20 aspects on it. Our solicitor said he has to always argue the SHPO. I have to say our solicitor was amazing but it cost us a hell of a lot. Our barrister wrote a 9 page report to the judge so literally everything was sorted before we even got into court. As the judge was reading it through that morning he was adding notes to the court system so our solicitor and barrister where updating us as soon as they read it.
they got my sons DOB wrong in court and the address on the first lot of paper work so I knew someone's address in my local area that had gone through this too. It does worry me that the police are making these mistakes, making SHPO's that are just generic, and if you have a crap solicitor, your stuck with it!
My advice would be to anyone, as soon as they get that CPS report (ours wasn't even all disclosed on that, it said attached and it wasn't)
also the SHPO has to be given to you/your solicitor 48 hours before court, you can refuse it if not. We only got it and not the full one 24 hours before magistrates, so our solicitor spoke to the defence and agreed to scrap it till crown. We then got it the Thurs before court Monday (makes you laugh, if they had it in Magistrates in Oct, why wait 3 weeks to give it to us) and our solicitor and barrister where straight on the arguments.
they got my sons DOB wrong in court and the address on the first lot of paper work so I knew someone's address in my local area that had gone through this too. It does worry me that the police are making these mistakes, making SHPO's that are just generic, and if you have a crap solicitor, your stuck with it!
My advice would be to anyone, as soon as they get that CPS report (ours wasn't even all disclosed on that, it said attached and it wasn't)
also the SHPO has to be given to you/your solicitor 48 hours before court, you can refuse it if not. We only got it and not the full one 24 hours before magistrates, so our solicitor spoke to the defence and agreed to scrap it till crown. We then got it the Thurs before court Monday (makes you laugh, if they had it in Magistrates in Oct, why wait 3 weeks to give it to us) and our solicitor and barrister where straight on the arguments.
Runawaygirl
Indicative searches will be words taken from their internet search history, which could suggest a search for something illegal, but which could also be perfectly legitimate searches. One example are the words 'teen porn', which would take you to almost any legal porn site.
It's not an offence to search for things, but the reason the police mention it, is to counter any claims by the defence that they stumbled across the images accidentally, because they know that is what everybody is going to say.
Indicative searches will be words taken from their internet search history, which could suggest a search for something illegal, but which could also be perfectly legitimate searches. One example are the words 'teen porn', which would take you to almost any legal porn site.
It's not an offence to search for things, but the reason the police mention it, is to counter any claims by the defence that they stumbled across the images accidentally, because they know that is what everybody is going to say.
Buckets
To get an SHPO amended, you don't need to spend thousands of pounds on assessments. Anyone can make a request to the court and they can represent themselves if they want, although often they prefer to pay a solicitor instead.
It all comes down to the evidence they put forward and whether the Judge is convinced the SHPO is necessary or not. After five years you don't even need the agreement of the police, but if they do object then the judge will want to know why and will take that into account.
Ideally you would want to discuss any amendments with the police first of all and get their support, if you can. Once the judge knows the police are supportive of an amendment, they will be far more likely to agree to it.
To get an SHPO amended, you don't need to spend thousands of pounds on assessments. Anyone can make a request to the court and they can represent themselves if they want, although often they prefer to pay a solicitor instead.
It all comes down to the evidence they put forward and whether the Judge is convinced the SHPO is necessary or not. After five years you don't even need the agreement of the police, but if they do object then the judge will want to know why and will take that into account.
Ideally you would want to discuss any amendments with the police first of all and get their support, if you can. Once the judge knows the police are supportive of an amendment, they will be far more likely to agree to it.
Post deleted by user
Like Buckets my OH has got restrictions with in the company of u/18s even though it was an online offence. Like Buckets we did not know this was wrong until months later. My OH was arrested and sentenced three weeks later, both OH and solicitor had covid so the whole thing was was a nightmare and he was a remand the whole time. I did not see my OH after he was arrested, he was arrested at work and leaves so early i did not see him since the previous night, and did not see him til after sentencing. So had no time to even speak to the solicitr or OH beofre court due to covid. We have not noticed much until now. He is not allowed to go to my dogs class xmas party as there will be kids there, they will all be there with the parents and it is not as if we know these people so will not be left with him at any point. But PO said we would have to notify each person. I dont even know them to give the details. It is a dog class! But now going on my own, and he is also not allowed to go to his frails mother xmas party in a care home, just in case there is children there, again they would be strangers. I get it if it family as there may be a time when he would be on his own, but in both cases the room will be full of strangers. His mother does not understand why he cant go. So she is now suffering. It is just another thing to over come. I will be looking at getting this overturned so your advice edel2020 is welcome thank you