SHPO Breaches and Remand: Disparities in the Law

Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) are a powerful mechanism used by the courts to manage individuals who are deemed as posing an ongoing risk of sexual harm to the public, or a particular group of the public; such as children, the elderly or vulnerable adults. Most often Sexual Harm Prevention Orders are imposed following convictions or cautions for sexual offences including rape, sexual communications with a child and offences concerning indecent images of children. SHPOs are available in both the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. 

If you or someone you care about is subject to a SHPO, you will be aware of these strict and far-reaching conditions which are designed to act as a deterrent and protect the public. These measures can range from internet usage bans to prohibitions of unsupervised contact with minors. Even the smallest mistakes like using a wrong device or not informing your offender manager about a new phone can lead to devastating consequences.

What many are unaware of, is that the courts often treat breaches of SHPOs varyingly depending on the type of offence the order is attached to. As Criminal Defence Lawyers, we are seeing a concerning trend amongst our clients where those accused of breaching conditions related to non-contact indecent images are immediately remanded into custody even when there has been no contact with anyone. Contrastingly, cases where there has been an allegation of breaching conditions relating to contact offences, defendants are far more likely to be released on bail. This is not proportionate to the risk and many of our clients are left feeling like the criminal justice system have let them down immensely.  

Research by Elliot et Al (Reoffending Rates in a UK Community Sample of Individuals with Convictions for Indecent Images of Children 2019) suggests there is an evidential difference in risk levels between individuals convicted of non-contact sexual offences such as possession of indecent images (IIOC) and those convicted of contact offences. This research examined the recidivism rates of individuals convicted solely for IIOC and those with a history of both IIOC and contact offences. The study found that only 2.7% of offenders related to IIOC were later convicted of a contact offence over a 13-year period. In contrast 13% or more of contact offender went on to reoffend in just 5 years. Clearly indicating a significantly higher reoffending rate. This raises serious questions about why courts are so quick to remand defendants who breach SHPO conditions related to indecent images when the actual risk of harm is often much lower than contact offences. 

Despite research indicating that non-contact offenders pose a lower risk of committing future contact offences, courts frequently remand these individuals when they breach SHPO conditions. These breaches tend to be technical in nature such as using an unregistered device or failing to notify probation about a change in address or internet use, yet this results in immediately being put into custody. Whereas breaches by individuals who possess a known history of contact offences are granted bail. These disparities suggest remand decisions are being driven less by safeguarding risks of future offending and more by public perception. Resulting in our justice system generating an unprecedented amount of injustice, interfering with rehabilitation of offenders. 

Breaches of SHPO’s relating to viewing or possessing indecent images are often viewed by the public and social media alike as particularly serious offences invoking strong emotional reactions. This is often due to the fact these offences can involve child exploitation even when no physical harm has been inflicted within the breach itself. Consequently, defendants accused of breaching their SHPO related to device restrictions or use of the internet can face immediate remand into custody even when breaches are of a technical nature.

As discussed, data shows most individuals of non-contact offences have an extremely low likelihood of going on to commit future contact offences especially in comparison to those who already have a history of physical abuse. Despite this, public opinion seems to categorise any breach involving indecent imagery with high levels of risk and danger. Withstanding the fact the courts are supposed to act as a scale, weighing evidence and facts, public perception unfortunately influences how the courts handle these cases. leading to decisions that prioritise a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach opposed to a balanced evidence-based risk assessment.  

Breaching a SHPO is a serious offence and can carry up to five years imprisonment depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach. It may be that the breach also causes you to be in breach of the notification requirements placed on you by the Sex Offenders Register and therefore, you could also be faced with charges in respect of this offence. 

Breaches can range from minor mishaps through to serious criminal offences, our team can defend and support you throughout. 

Accusations of this nature can be extremely distressing and so it is vital to get expert legal advice. Even minor or technical breaches like using an unregistered phone or not notifying probation of any changes can lead to arrest and potentially being remanded in custody. It is important not to attempt to defend yourself without a lawyer present. At Eventum Legal we have over 25 years of combined experience specialising in sexual offences and domestic violence. 

We understand that this can be an overwhelming process, so we do our upmost best to make sure you feel supported throughout every stage of proceedings. 

Do not go through this alone, contact one of our specialist criminal defence lawyers today.