In a recent legal case, a paedophile’s legal team argued that he should not be subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) as his partner was monitoring his devices. This argument raises important questions surrounding the responsibility of partners in monitoring and preventing sexual harm, as well as the effectiveness of SHPOs in protecting the public.
Before delving into the specifics of this particular case, it is important to understand what an SHPO is and its purpose. An SHPO is a court order that aims to prevent individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offence from causing further harm. It can impose a range of restrictions on the individual, such as prohibiting them from accessing the internet or contacting children. The purpose of an SHPO is to protect the public and prevent further sexual harm from occurring.
In this particular case, the paedophile’s legal team argued that his partner was actively monitoring his devices and therefore, an SHPO was unnecessary. They claimed that his partner’s monitoring would prevent him from accessing any illegal or harmful material. Furthermore, they argued that the SHPO would be an unnecessary burden on the individual and his partner.
While this argument may seem logical at first glance, it raises important concerns. Firstly, it places the responsibility of preventing sexual harm solely on the partner. This is problematic as it shifts the responsibility from the individual who has been convicted of a sexual offence. It is not the partner’s responsibility to ensure that the individual does not engage in harmful behaviour, it is the individual’s responsibility to seek help and actively work towards changing their behaviour.
Secondly, relying solely on a partner to monitor and prevent sexual harm is not a foolproof system. Partners may not always be aware of the individual’s actions and may not have the necessary skills or resources to effectively monitor their devices. This could potentially lead to the individual accessing harmful material or engaging in harmful behaviour without their partner’s knowledge. It is important to note that an SHPO is not just about preventing access to illegal material, it also aims to prevent the individual from engaging in any behaviour that may cause harm.
Moreover, the argument put forth by the legal team undermines the effectiveness of SHPOs in protecting the public. SHPOs are put in place for a reason – to protect the public from individuals who have been convicted of sexual offences. By not imposing an SHPO, the individual may have more opportunities to engage in harmful behaviour, which could potentially put the public at risk. It is the responsibility of the justice system to prioritize the safety and well-being of the public, and an SHPO is an important tool in achieving this.
In addition, the argument also raises concerns about the individual’s attitude towards their own behaviour. By arguing against an SHPO, the individual is essentially stating that they do not see the need for any restrictions or monitoring. This attitude is concerning as it shows a lack of understanding and accountability for their actions. It is important for individuals who have been convicted of sexual offences to recognize the impact of their behaviour and take responsibility for it.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that an SHPO is not a permanent restriction. It can be reviewed and modified over time, taking into account the individual’s progress and behaviour. If an individual can demonstrate that they have actively sought help and made significant progress towards changing their behaviour, the SHPO can be lifted or modified. Therefore, it is not an undue burden on the individual, but rather a necessary step in their rehabilitation process.
In conclusion, the argument put forth by the paedophile’s legal team raises important questions about the responsibility of partners in preventing sexual harm and the effectiveness of SHPOs. While it is understandable that the partner may play a role in monitoring the individual’s behaviour, it should not be their sole responsibility. The justice system has a responsibility to protect the public and SHPOs are an important tool in achieving this. It is crucial for individuals who have been convicted of sexual offences to take responsibility for their actions and actively work towards changing their behaviour.
