Cheyne [2019] EWCA Crim 182

The appellant was made subject to an SHPO following two offences of voyeurism which were dealt with after he had absconded for a period of five years. He had a previous conviction for burglary with intent to rape. An application to vary the order was subsequently made upon consideration of matters not taken into account when the order was originally made. It became clear that the appellant had spent the five year period in Thailand, crossing the border out and back into the country every 30 days to renew a tourist visa. He had returned to the UK as his passport was due to expire and he was in the process of obtaining a new one, with the probable intention of returning to Thailand. A prohibition on foreign travel was added to the order, he appealed against that variation on the basis there was a requirement in law for there to be a change in circumstances before such a variation can be made.

In this case the basis for the variation of the order was not known by the court who made the original order but should have been. The defence argument that a variation is precluded in these circumstances goes too far. “The order proceeds from a protective duty and after-gained knowledge does justify an application of this kind….This order was perfectly properly made. It was applied for in a proper fashion.” The appeal was dismissed.