A Guide to Sexual Harm Prevention Orders Representation

At JD Spicer Zeb Solicitors, we are very experienced in advising our clients on SHPOs and representing them in court.

We recently in case in which the sentencing Judge imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) of 10 years and a suspended sentence on our client. We acted for the Defendant throughout his proceedings, and in his appeal against the imposition of the SHPO the order which was reduced to 5 years. We have also made other successful variation applications to the Crown Court to remove onerous contact conditions.

We regularly act for clients facing a diverse range of sexual offence charges. If you need any advice regarding sexual offence charges or SHPOs, please CONTACT US.

Please read a specialist barristers article below –

Understanding Sexual Harm Prevention Orders – the consequences when they go wrong.

Mark Barlow

Barrister

The approach taken by the law when dealing with sexual offenders has undergone significant changes over the years. The introduction of stricter sentencing guidelines, court orders designed to restrict offender’s behaviour and the requirement for registration as an offender, have all made sentencing for sexual offenders’ more complex and challenging.  In consequence they have a long-lasting impact upon the future of the individual, even after the sentence has been served. In this short article the author intends to focus upon SHPO and their impact when they go wrong.

To legally make a SHPO the following questions need to be addressed by the court.

Is the making of an order necessary to protect the public from sexual harm through the commission of scheduled offences by the offender?

If some order is necessary, are the terms imposed nevertheless oppressive?

Overall, are the terms proportionate?

If the answer is yes to all three questions, then an order can be made. Whilst any restriction may be considered socially beneficial it is not the same as being necessary. It may be a useful tool, but it also has the potential to infringe on the personal life of the individual concerned.

The question of necessity is very much a fact-sensitive issue depending upon the individual offender and the offending. It is also the determining factor whether such an order can in fact in law be made by the Court.

Important to recognise that the prohibitions will depend upon the type of offending. Physical contact offences are dealt with very differently to non-contact and browsing offending. Unfortunately, SHPO sometimes do not reflect that difference, so then become oppressive for the offender and require to be challenged.

The principal aim of a SHPO is as a preventive order, guarding against the individual from committing further sexual offences in the future, so they are designed to regulate the future behaviour of the offender. The consequences of breaching any of the terms set out in an SHPO is a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, the consequences have a major impact upon the individual and their families, curtailing, and limiting their daily lives and their futures.

The duration of SHPOs range from 5 years to an indefinite period so it important when considering the terms that they are not oppressive under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the rights to a private life.  It is crucial that when a SHPO is sought by the CPS or the Police, that the legal representative understands not only the law but challenges both the making of such an Order and the individual terms sought. In many instances, those terms are ‘stock’ ones applied for without any consideration of the future impact or the enforcement of such terms. It must never be simply a question of allowing such orders to be made automatically, without any thought to the impact on the individual and their future and importantly, whether they are necessary to protect the public from the individual reoffending.

It is always sensible to ask the question:

If a SHPO is necessary, what will be the impact of the terms upon the acknowledged risk of further offending by prohibiting the offender from behaviour set out in the SHPO?

Then the critical question that must be asked is “do the terms meet the dangers that the offender presents and is it proportionate to the dangers that exist”?

Any prohibition in a SHPO will not be necessary if its effect is merely to duplicate another relevant regime as overlap is to be avoided.  Examples are the regulations under disqualification with working with children and being placed on the barred list. It is also important to consider any licence terms imposed as part of the sentence. A clear example is where those convicted of historic offences are subject to lengthy sentences of imprisonment and further licence conditions upon release, will impact upon this issue, whether in those circumstances such an order is necessary. 

A question often asked is once made, can they be challenged or reviewed? When an order is made at the time of the sentence, then the proper place to challenge both the making and the terms are the Court of Appeal. However, when it is a variation, renewal, or a discharge then an application should be made at the Court where it was made.  This can be implemented by either the offender or the Chief of Police. In relation to any such application in those circumstances then it is important to present evidence that the personal circumstances of the offender have changed, justifying the application.

SHPOs are not straightforward, and the way that the law deals with convicted sex offenders can be bewildering and confusing for those subjected to them. They have an impact, not only immediately but also well into the future, which can be particularly challenging for younger offenders.

It is important for individuals subject to a SHPO receive proper legal advice at the time they are made to prevent mistakes occurring.  Once a SHPO is made by the Court it must be reviewed and challenged within the timeframe for appealing the sentence. Late applications are usually refused due to the need for finality in criminal proceedings. It is equally important that if the personal circumstances of the individual change, advice is sought to determine whether an application could now be made to the Court to vary, amend, or discharge the SHPO.  

Dealing effectively with SHPOs and mitigating errors is all about providing practical and reliable advice on how to challenge restrictions that will impact upon an individual’s life. Whilst every case is different, the law, whilst at times complex, require experienced lawyers in the field of sexual offending who can provide valuable service to those who wish to challenge the restrictions placed upon them by the Court.

Mark Barlow is a practicing barrister in both England and Northern Ireland and where he specialises in sexual offences.
We regularly instruct counsel to give advice and representation for clients facing sexual harm prevention orders.

Please see our fixed fees below for an enhanced private service:

Solicitor fees:

The initial stage of advice: 

Starting from £1,500 plus VAT based on up to 5 hrs work. 

• Take your instructions. 
• Read supporting evidence.
• Provide advice to you.
• Seek the barrister's opinion if you fund this step.

Application to vary, amend or discharge SHPO:

 Starting from £1,500 plus VAT for up to 5 hours work.

• Provide ongoing advice.
• Representation.
• instructing barrister.

The above fees are a guide depending on. the nature of the case and any further work required.

Plus

Barrister fees:

• Advice and drafting from £1000 plus VAT

Plus

• Appearing at Court to represent starting from £1,000 plus VAT.

The above fees are a guide depending on the nature of the case and any further work.

For more information CLlCK HERE or Call 0207 624 7771.