How can you find out why someone had an ankle monitor

[IcyPenguin101]

Someone staying with a neighbour has an electronic monitor on their ankle. I assume someone would only have an ankle monitor if they have gotten out of prison and that is their place of record of probation purposes. I’m not friendly enough with the neighbour to ask straight out who is the person but I assume a family member. I’m basically wondering if I have to be concerned. I’m assuming they’d only permit ankle monitoring for something low level?

If they are on tag they are probably less likely to commit a crime than than you are.

I know who this is, he’s a few doors up from me
Don't worry about him, he’s a really nice bloke, and he’s promised not to do it again (while he has the tag on)

Er no, you don’t.

If they have been convicted of a crime, then it is usually in the local press under court announcements... if you know their full name.
But be aware that such announcements are very minimal and you wont know the full facts. Say, someone could be on a tag for assaulting someone, but what the article wont tell you is that they have MH issues and have been bullied by the person they had assaulted for months beforehand.

Why don’t we just bring back the stocks and ducking stool, in the interest of public justice?

Around one in three men in the UK have a criminal record, chances are that includes several neighbours of any poster on here. The idea that we should know the criminal history of our neighbours as suggested by many on here is as impractical if nothing else. Natural curiosity sure, but there’s no right or need for that to be satisfied.

As my son would say it's 'nunya'

As in nun ya business

Electronic tags - GOV.UK

If you are very concerned, you could contact Probation Services. They won’t tell you what the person has done but it could be useful intel for them ie I don’t live in the UK currently but in the country where I do, there is an inquest currently underway for a woman who was murdered by the man next door. His probation officer was not aware there were any young women living nearby and knowing this would have triggered a risk assessment.

Assuming in England or Wales (don’t know about Scotland, but believe they are similar), they are not. People convicted of a crime who are still under sentence for that crime (and for some years after) do not have a right to privacy about it. Open justice is a principle at the heart of the English justice system that can be traced back to the Magna Carta. The verdict, sentencing and judges remarks are public information.

Yeah nothing to do with you and someone has deemed them to be safe on the outside on certain conditions.

I have however seen the dispatches episode about the tagging scandal and that was eye opening to an extent. Of course that programme is meant to shock and tell the extreme end of the story.

I suppose if OP got ahold of their name and googled, there will be court data relating to that case. Perhaps not in depth but name, date of case / sentencing and brief reason would. I only know from looking up a case I was on as a juror when it ended. That being said, I would just leave it alone. Nobody’s business and OP isn’t going to be harmed, it’s an irrational thought process and IMO it’s just a cover story for being a bit nosey (dw, I’d be wondering too)

You don't.

You might personally think you should but the law doesn't agree. So, no, you don't 'have the right' to know.

The law does agree with her. Criminal sentences are public information. You don’t have a right to be informed, but you have a right to go find it out. It isn’t private.

is it a curfew tag? GPS tag or alcohol detection tag? I mean it's none of your business but there are more than one electronic tag the courts use

Sounds like they should have done the risk assessment before - what location is there where there are ‘no young women living nearby’?

Yes but someone released by the parole board has been deemed to be of low risk to the public. They have already served what is considered the appropriate sentence. Whether you disagree about whether the sentence was long enough or not is irrelevant. There are millions of people with criminal records including for sex offences and you come into contact with them all the time unknowingly.

I’ve never made any comment on what I consider appropriate sentencing, simply stating facts. I work for the probation service, and I’m afraid the parole board do not have to deem someone as low risk to the public for them to be released.

The parole board don’t set risk levels and the test for release, as you know, is that risk can be safely managed in the community. Most lay people would understand that as low risk, rather than the Oasys version of risk.

No, you don’t have an absolute ‘right’ to find out. If the information is in the press you might find it, and if you know someone’s name you can call the court and ask after sentencing but you can’t just follow up with them indefinitely. Not all sentencing remarks are published.

Open Justice means it happens in open court, not that the information is available to anyone on request forever.

In some circs a request can be made (eg Claire’s Law, DBS check) but access to criminal record information has to be requested under a lawful basis, which the average person doesn’t have.

That's debatable with some of the new measures, hdc12, reset, impact, sds40, ecsl before that, more and more people are being released earlier than we would've previously with their current assessments. Add in presumptive recategorisation and I'm not sure I'm as confident as you are in that assertion.

No, you don't.

Open justice mean more than open courts. It means the information is free to be distributed (except in limited circumstances - I did not say it was an absolute right, almost no rights are absolute).

Yes, it can be difficult to find, criminal rights activists have limited the ways people can access information. The idea that criminals might be shunned by others is, apparently, more of a concern to successive Governments than the idea that criminals might victimize people who aren’t aware of their history. Secrecy generally benefits those who want the information kept secret and hurts those who are kept in the dark. This is no exception.

No, it doesn’t mean that information can be distributed freely. If it did, anyone would be able to access the information. Please explain how you would go about finding this information.

I assume by ‘criminal rights activists’ you mean ‘the law of England and Wales’.

None of those release mechanisms involve the parole board, and therefore don’t engage the release test. Some are supervision protocols, nothing to do with release at all, as you presumably know.

I haven’t asserted or expressed confidence in anything at all. Just pointing out the facts. It’s a shame to see professionals contributing to the misconceptions that some citizens have. It only makes the job harder.