On Saturday new rules came into force in England and Wales which gave the right to those placed on the sex offenders register for life to seek a review of that position. Those who find themselves having to register with the police as a sex offender for life will have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 30 months. An individual who is placed on the register for an indefinite period can after a period of 15 years following their release seek a review from the police. If the police decide that the individual continues to pose a threat to society then the requirement that they continue to register with the police will continue. However, should the police decide that the individual no longer poses a threat to society they requirement for registration will no longer apply.
Firstly it is important to point out that the term “sex offenders register” is somewhat of a fallacy. There is not a long list of names of people who are sex offenders. What being placed on the sex offenders register means in practice is that an individual must register with their local police force and provide them certain details such as their address.
I have written on this topic before, but what has spurred me to write about it again was a piece on Radio 5 Live involving John Cooper QC. The person he was discussing the issue with, a victim’s campaigner, seemed to either not understand the system or was deliberately misleading in order to support her chosen point of view. One issue that I wish to take issue with was the way in which she continually referred to sex offenders as “him”. It is shocking that in this day and age that people still do not consider the fact that women do also commit sexual offences and can therefore also be subject to being registered as sex offenders. I do not have statistics to hand, but it probably is the case that the majority of known offenders are male. That does not mean that women cannot and do not commit sexual offences.
Some of her other comments as well appeared to demonstrate a poor understanding of the legal system. It should be made very clear that there is a great deal of difference between an individual’s criminal record and them being subject to the registering requirements as a sex offender. A person convicted of a sexual offence and who is sentenced to a period of 30 months or more in custody will have to declare their conviction for life. Currently sentences of 30 months or more never become spent. Those of less than 30 months will also continue to show on CRB checks where a convicted sex offender applies for certain types of work (e.g. working with children or vulnerable adults). There is no shirking of responsibility as was suggested on Radio 5 Live. All that being removed from the register means is that the intense level of scrutiny is removed where that is no longer appropriate or necessary; it does not mean that the fact a person has been convicted of a sexual offence is removed.
The fact that it is the police and not the courts who are considering these applications is another issue. I noted at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision that the police are not likely to be an independent and impartial tribunal. It is also putting the police in the position of reviewing the decision of a court which is, I would suggest, not a great idea. This is not out of some dislike of the police, but rather is about keeping the roles of the police and the courts separate and defined. It should be the Courts, as it is in Scotland, who conduct these reviews rather than the police.
There is an important point to all of this though. These sorts of debates are often framed as victim v offender. However that is, I would suggest, an unsatisfactory way of looking at these issues. Victims want to see justice and they can seek that through the courts. If an offender is convicted the court decides upon the punishment. Punishment should not, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, be continual and never-ending. As I listened to the piece on Radio 5 Live on this matter I got the distinct impression that the victims’ campaigner was founding her arguments upon punishment and responsibility rather than on public protection. Keeping an offender on the sex offenders register for an indefinite period where there is no real reason to does nothing at all to increase public protection. Yes, there will be those who continue to pose a risk to the public and there is no doubt at all that they should remain closely monitored by the authorities to ensure that the public are protected.
One final matter that I wish to address is the comments the victims’ campaigner made regarding cautions and rape. The campaigner speaking on Radio 5 Live said that it was a matter of fact that rapists were being cautioned. Anyone who admits rape or is convicted of rape will go to prison and will serve a significant sentence in prison. It is conceivable that there might be cases where an individual originally accused of rape might be issued with a caution. Let’s be clear though, these persons were only ever accused of rape; they were never convicted and if they are receiving a caution then it will be for a very minor sexual offence. Where there is evidence that rape or any other serious sexual offence has occurred then it will be put before the court to determine whether that individual is guilty of rape or not. To suggest otherwise is nothing other than scaremongering.
So, what does this change in the law not mean? Firstly, it does not mean that after 15 years of being released that sex offenders will automatically be relieve of the requirement to register with the police. Secondly, it does not mean that a record of a person’s conviction for a sex offence is no longer in existence. Their criminal record will remain. All it means is that after 15 years a person can apply to the police to be considered as being no longer a risk to the public and as such no longer required to register with the police.
Of course, those who are victims of a sexual offence require the empathy and support of society. They will often live with the ramifications of the offence for many years after the event if not for the rest of their lives. Those who commit sexual offences are deserving of punishment and must accept responsibility for their actions. They will be punished by the courts, often by serving a prison sentence, and will face what could be considered as continual punishment through the fact that they will be required to disclose the fact that they have been convicted of a sexual offence. What we must allow for though is those who have served their punishment and do not continue to pose a danger to the public to get on with their lives in society. Simply because someone has committed an offence (and this goes for any offences) does not mean that they will always offend. Rehabilitation is possible and where it has occurred it should be recognised.
prout de jure 