The power to impose electronic monitoring engages Article 8, which requires that any interferences with the right to private and family life are in accordance with the law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary and proportionate to that aim. Generally, measures imposed by way of an SCPO will be justified on the basis that they can only be imposed where the court is satisfied (on the civil standard of proof–i.e. more likely than not) that the individual “has been involved in serious crime” and the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public. Furthermore, the courts, as public authorities, are obliged under the HRA to act compatibly with human rights, so any conditions that are imposed must not violate human rights, including by interfering with Article 8 disproportionately. The power is clear and adequately prescribed, and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of preventing serious crime. However, the threshold test is whether the electronic monitoring is “appropriate”. In order to comply with Article 8, the test ought to be one of necessity and proportionality.