Confused
Notifications OFF
We have just had our first visit from the PPU for my son since his plea hearing and I'm confused . They have said that regardless of what his SHPO is when sentenced , simply by virtue of being on SOR , he won't be able to have contact with under 18s ie family unless he discloses his conviction to the family but that's not stated in any of the SOR paperwork that we have been given , I could understand if it related to unsupervised contact but he would be supervised at a family gathering
Hi, my son was sentenced last year and his SHPO states 'no unsupervised contact with under 18 years of age'. Prior to sentencing the only children he had to have supervised contact for were his own which made no sense.
I don't know how the police can say that your son can't have any contact when he hasn't yet had his SHPO unless it is part of his bail restrictions.
I don't know how the police can say that your son can't have any contact when he hasn't yet had his SHPO unless it is part of his bail restrictions.
It is part of his bail conditions not to have unsupervised contact and that's fine but they are saying that just by virtue of being on SOR even if contact is supervised we would have to disclose to family if going to a family event etc but yet he can go to the pub/shops etc without any issue . It doesn't make any sense especially as the provisional SHPO from cps states age 16 not 18
Just a thought, would it be worth speaking with the charity UNLOCK about this to see if they can offer any knowledge/expertise around this? The charity NACRO may also be worth contacting too.
#alison20 - thanks I will do .
It wouldn't be very often anyway that he would see family members under 18 , maybe once or twice a year but they also said that if those family members made an unexpected visit to our house then that would be fine as it would be classed as unavoidable
It wouldn't be very often anyway that he would see family members under 18 , maybe once or twice a year but they also said that if those family members made an unexpected visit to our house then that would be fine as it would be classed as unavoidable
The SOR is a registrations requirement only. It requires you to register and inform certain information - Bank details, addresses, when you are away from home for a certain number of days. It does not include restriction.
It could be put on the SHPO or licence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/p06qhs5t?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Below is one of the notification requirements that would impact time spent with under 18s
Notify where you are living in a household with a child under the age of 18. Under the changes, those subject to the notification requirements will be required to notify when residing or staying in a relevant household for a period of at least 12 hours with a child who is under the age of 18
It could be put on the SHPO or licence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/p06qhs5t?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Below is one of the notification requirements that would impact time spent with under 18s
Notify where you are living in a household with a child under the age of 18. Under the changes, those subject to the notification requirements will be required to notify when residing or staying in a relevant household for a period of at least 12 hours with a child who is under the age of 18
It's not surprising much that they can prohibit unsupervised contact (and it wouldn't lead to punishment for your son if not on a SHPO or license condition) - but the officer has a power to disclose your son's offences where he believes it is necessary for public protection. Seeing children of family members or friends isn't the same as running into the children of strangers - who are unlikely to hug you, or ask you to mind their children while they go to the bar. It's also the case that if your son has only recently been convicted, the officer won't know what risks he poses - if he's got a chance to know you both he might decide that he doesn't feel the need to disclose if you or someone else who knows about his conviction promises to supervise him closely at the event. The police would also say that this prevents false accusations against the offender. It is frustrating if your son isn't a risk of contact offending, but how can the officer know that yet? If it was in a SHPO or license condition and he went to the family event and ended up unsupervised, he risks prosecution or recall to prison. Without that he risks 'only' the police telling the family member and the police paying closer attention. If the family member needs to find out, it's better coming from your son or you!
This is an interest area of discussion. Our son was sentenced in January,but did not receive his SHPO until April. In that time he could go wherever he liked.
His SHPO now states that he cannot stay overnight in a house with under 18.
They wanted to include a SS visit if he was in a household for more than 12 hours. We disputed this as the only likely visits would be to his siblings if they have a child. This was accepted by the court,as long as parents knew.
The ridiculous element that the young family living next door to us have not been informed by the police,even though I told the police that their children were 5&8.
This is good for us,but I dread when they find out!
His SHPO now states that he cannot stay overnight in a house with under 18.
They wanted to include a SS visit if he was in a household for more than 12 hours. We disputed this as the only likely visits would be to his siblings if they have a child. This was accepted by the court,as long as parents knew.
The ridiculous element that the young family living next door to us have not been informed by the police,even though I told the police that their children were 5&8.
This is good for us,but I dread when they find out!
EBP, I don't think police usually inform neighbours even if they have small kids.
They would only inform the neighbours if your son had regular contact with the kids.
They would only inform the neighbours if your son had regular contact with the kids.
The other devastating thing was that they were trying to make him disclose to his employer , he works in a supermarket and it has been the one thing throughout this process that has kept him going . He broke down when they told him but thankfully they called their inspector who said not to disclose at the moment and to review after sentencing. I struggle to understand how he is allowed to visit shops/bars/ restaurants etc without an issue but they have an issue with him working in a supermarket in a job that has kept him focused for 18 months
Thankyou for clarifying this. We don't have a close relationship with our neighbours, although I love hearing the children playing in the garden.
EBP, the police didn't inform our neighbours who have children but we chose to tell them ourselves.
Ocean,this is the dilemma.
They are a young family,who we don't know very well,but on chat over the fence terms. I think we will wait until next Crown Court appearance,as he may be released to our home. If he stays in prison,it may not be an issue.
They are a young family,who we don't know very well,but on chat over the fence terms. I think we will wait until next Crown Court appearance,as he may be released to our home. If he stays in prison,it may not be an issue.
EBP, that sounds like a good plan. We waited until after crown court before we spoke to our neighbours. The media reported on the case after plea hearing and sentencing and we noticed they'd stopped their son coming into our garden to get his football when it came over. We discussed it with them so they knew first hand what had happened.
This is a bit of a grey area, because although police have the power to disclose, they are supposed to follow strict procedures before doing so.
That means clearly identifying a risk and setting out in writing what the risk is, that justifies the disclosure.
So to tell a person on the SOR that they must disclose to a third party is not correct. They can ask the person to disclose voluntarily. If the person refuses then the police can do the disclosure themselves, but they must get that disclosure approved by their superiors as well and it must all be documented.
That means clearly identifying a risk and setting out in writing what the risk is, that justifies the disclosure.
So to tell a person on the SOR that they must disclose to a third party is not correct. They can ask the person to disclose voluntarily. If the person refuses then the police can do the disclosure themselves, but they must get that disclosure approved by their superiors as well and it must all be documented.