Case Dropped: Breach of Sexual Harm Prevention Order Case - Staines Magistrates Court
Mr Jonathan Lynn, one of our most senior and experienced criminal defence solicitors recently represented a privately paying client with their case preparation leading up to trial in Staines Magistrates Court listed on 22nd May 2025.
Our client was subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) made under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by Guildford Crown Court upon conclusion of prior criminal proceedings in 2015.
Approximately ten years later our client was charged with breaching his SHPO for allegedly deleting internet history from an internet enabled device. After appearing in Guildford Magistrates Court in October 2024 our client, represented by another firm, entered a not guilty plea, and approached J D Spicer Zeb for specialist private representation leading up to his trial.
On behalf of our client, Mr Lynn served written representations on the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) challenging the basis of the charges by submitting that there was no real prospect of conviction and that, as the case failed to meet the standards of the CPS merits test, the case should be discontinued immediately. Mr Lynn argued that the Police had misunderstood the parameters of our client’s ‘Google Account Data and Privacy Settings’ believing them to amount to evidence of deleted internet history on our client’s device. Mr Lynn explained that the settings in question merely affect how Google stored one’s data in order to personalise the experience of the services they provide and that their activation did not prevent our client’s device from recording nor storing browsing history.
Whilst waiting for a response from the CPS, Mr Lynn fully prepared the case to cross examine the police about their misunderstanding and prepared to instruct an expert data technology witness to provide an opinion on the facts of the alleged breach. However, upon chasing, the CPS served a notice of discontinuance the day before the listed trial date, confirming that there was not enough evidence to provide a real prospect of conviction.
Our client therefore did not need to attend Court as the charges he faced were discontinued, and he was able to carry on with his life free from the mistakes of his past.