(1) A court may make an order under this section in respect of a person ( “the defendant”) where any of subsections (2) to (4) applies to the defendant and—

(a) where subsection (4) applies, it is satisfied that the defendantÂ’s behaviour since the appropriate date makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant;

(b) in any other case, it is satisfied that it is necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant.

"CRAIG Meehan, the former partner of Shannon Matthews' mother, was today jailed for 20 weeks for possessing child pornography.

The father of one was convicted today at Dewsbury Magistrates' Court of possessing 49 indecent images on his computer.

But Meehan, who has already spent 166 days in prison on remand, was released from custody soon after the hearing ended.

[..]

Meehan was made subject to a seven-year sexual offences prevention order which bans him from having photographs of children under 16 unless with permission of the child's parents.

He is also banned from downloading or viewing any image of children, except for family photos.

Access to websites relating to children was also barred under the order."

It has twice been ruled (once in the High Court), during appeals about ⛓️‍💥[Removed], that a person possessing indecent images does not pose a serious danger to the public ⚠️ ↗. The standard used for sexual offences prevention orders is slightly different, but the same principles apply.

Meehan is not "free" and does not meet the criteria for a SOPO under the Sexual Offences Act. Having said that, he did say that paedophiles should be sent to Alcatraz, during a documentary about his missing (now found) stepdaughter.