Understanding the difference between an SRO v SHPO is essential if you are facing allegations involving sexual offences, or if the police believe there is a risk of sexual harm. Both a sexual risk order (SRO) and a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) are serious civil orders that can impose strict legal requirements on an individual concerned, often before or after a criminal offence.
These court orders are designed to prevent harm, particularly where there is a perceived risk to children or vulnerable adults or vulnerable adults generally. However, they arise in very different legal contexts and carry different consequences, particularly around criminal conviction, criminal record, and long-term restrictions.
If you are under investigation, have attended a police station, or are subject to police information held on the police national computer (PNC), it is crucial to understand how such orders operate and how they may affect your future.
What is a Sexual Risk Order (SRO)?
A sexual risk order (SRO) is a civil order that can be imposed without a criminal conviction, caution, or charge. This makes it one of the most concerning preventative tools available to both the police and the National Crime Agency.
An application may be made by the chief officer of police, chief constable, or even the Director General of the National Crime Agency where they believe:
- The individual subject has committed an act of a sexual nature, and
- There is a risk of sexual harm to particular children, particular members of the public, or vulnerable adults
Importantly, the alleged behaviour does not need to meet the threshold of a criminal offence punishable in court. Instead, the court applies the civil standard, meaning proof on the balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt.
Interim Sexual Risk Orders
In urgent cases, an interim sexual risk order or interim order can be imposed before the full hearing. This allows either the police or the chief officer to act quickly where they claim there is an immediate perceived risk or reasonable cause to protect the public.
Duration and Scope
SROs can vary in duration and scope:
- Minimum duration: 2 years
- Maximum duration: No limit (can be indefinite)
Conditions must be necessarily set to address the harm from the defendant, but in practice they can be wide-ranging, including:
- Internet and device restrictions (phones, computers, cloud storage)
- Restrictions involving educational establishments
- Limits on contact with children or vulnerable adults
- Foreign travel restrictions
- Requirements linked to a home address or movement
Because the definition of an act of a sexual nature alleged is broad, cases often turn on how the alleged behaviour is interpreted.
What is a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)?
A sexual harm prevention order is fundamentally different to an SRO. An SHPO can only be imposed where there is an existing criminal conviction, caution, or relevant finding for a qualifying sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act.
This means SHPOs are typically linked to registered sex offenders and form part of sentencing in the Crown Court or, in some cases, the Magistrates Court.
SHPOs can be imposed:
- At sentencing following conviction
- By later application from police forces where further restrictions are needed
- Where previous orders or behaviour justify additional controls
Duration
- Minimum duration: 5 years
- Maximum duration: No upper limit (can be indefinite)
Key Differences: SRO v SHPO
| Feature | Sexual Risk Order (SRO) | Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) |
| Criminal conviction required | No | Yes |
| Legal standard | Civil standard | Criminal context |
| Minimum duration | 2 years | 5 years |
| Maximum duration | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Who applies | Police / National Crime Agency | Court / police |
| Typical court | Magistrates Court | Magistrates Court or Crown Court |
| Trigger | Alleged behaviour | Proven offence |
Restrictions and Positive Obligations
Both SROs and SHPOs can impose extensive restrictions and positive obligations that reshape everyday life. These must be proportionate, but in practice can be highly intrusive. Common restrictions include:
- Bans on contact with children or vulnerable adults
- Restrictions on visiting specific locations or educational establishments
- Controls on internet use and digital devices
- Foreign travel restrictions and passport surrender
- Limits on working in certain professions
Positive obligations – active requirements imposed by courts as part of sexual risk orders and other civil orders – may require those under an SRO to:
- Attend at behavioural programmes
- Comply with monitoring software
- Report to police or attending appointments
- Follow steps aimed at protecting children and reducing perceived risk
These obligations apply even where the defendant acting denies the allegations.
Notification Requirements and the Police National Computer
An SHPO automatically triggers notification requirements under the offenders act, meaning the individual must register their details, including:
- Home address
- Travel plans
- Personal identifiers
These are recorded on the police national computer.
An SRO does not automatically make someone a registered offender, but it still imposes notification duties and may be recorded on the police national computer and disclosed in certain circumstances by the chief officer.
Breach of an Order: Criminal Consequences
Breaching either an SRO or SHPO is a criminal offence punishable by:
- Up to five years imprisonment
- A maximum sentence reflecting the seriousness of non-compliance
The court will consider whether there was a reasonable excuse, but strict compliance is expected. Even minor misunderstandings can lead to prosecution.
Human Rights and Proportionality
Although these are civil orders, they have serious consequences for:
- Private and family life
- Employment and professional reputation
- Freedom of movement and association
The court must ensure that:
- The order is necessary to prevent harm
- Conditions are proportionate
- There are no unnecessary prohibitions
- The restrictions do not unfairly interfere with matters such as defendant’s religious beliefs
Applications can and should be challenged where the perceived risk is overstated or unsupported.
Challenging or Varying Such Orders
If you are subject to such an order, there are options available:
- Oppose the original application
- Challenge the evidence and police information
- Seek variation to remove unnecessary prohibitions
- Apply for discharge after a fixed period
- Challenge overly broad foreign travel or digital restrictions
Courts must carefully assess whether restrictions are formally covered, justified, and still required.
An application to vary or discharge a Sexual Harm Prevention Order or Sexual Risk Order must be made to the court that originally imposed the order. SHPOs cannot be discharged within five years of its imposition without the consent of both the individual subject to the order and the police, although the court can vary the order during this period.
Why Specialist Legal Advice Matters
Whether you are dealing with an interim order, full application, or further order, early advice is critical. These cases often rely heavily on interpretation of behaviour of a sexual nature alleged, and the consequences of getting it wrong are severe.
At McArthur Solicitors, our expert team provides tailored advice and robust representation in sexual harm order and preventative order cases. We focus on:
- Challenging weak or speculative allegations
- Ensuring conditions are proportionate
- Deleting unnecessary prohibitions
- Protecting your long-term interests and reputation
Contact McArthur Solicitors
If you are facing a sexual risk order, sexual harm prevention order, or any related investigation, our sexual offence solicitors can help.
We provide clear, strategic and tailored advice at every stage, from the police station through to court proceedings.Contact McArthur Solicitors today for confidential, expert legal support.
