Legal Commentary: Children on the Sex Offenders Register: Proportionality, Prospect of Change and Article 8 Rights
Date | 01 December 2009 |
DOI | 10.1177/1473225409345105 |
Published date | 01 December 2009 |
Subject Matter | Articles |
LEGAL COMMENTARY
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Published by SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1473–2254, Vol 9(3): 286–294
DOI: 10.1177/1473225409345105
Legal Commentary
Children on the Sex Offenders Register:
Proportionality, Prospect of Change and Article 8 Rights
Nigel Stone
Correspondence: Nigel Stone, School of Social Work and Psychology, Elizabeth Fry
Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. Email: n.stone@uea.ac.uk
When a child is convicted of a sexual offence should the sex offender notifi cation requirements
take account of the offender’s young age or should the consequences mirror those that apply in
the case of an adult? Should safeguarding provisions – designed to achieve comprehensive public
protection – be responsive to considerations based on individual circumstances and the prospect
of change through rehabilitation or maturation? Is it valid for consequences to be taken into
consideration at time of sentence? This Commentary reports a sequence of recent judgments
that have grappled with such questions.
The case of F.
Aged 12, F. was convicted, following contested trial, of two counts of rape of a child aged under
13 and four associated offences – one of sexual assault and three of inciting a child to engage in
sexual activity.1 The Crown Court considered: (i) an educational psychologist’s report assessing
F. as of average ability overall; (ii) a pre-sentence report which noted that risk remained diffi cult
to assess because of his continuing claim of innocence but proposing a supervision order with
ISSP (intensive supervision and surveillance); (iii) a psychiatric report which concluded that he
did not evidence any mental disorder but as requiring sex education and close supervision to
protect others. F. incurred a 30 month sentence of detention under s.91 of the Powers Criminal
Courts (Sentencing) Act (PCC(S)A) 2000, imposed concurrently in respect of each offence.
The initial appeal
On F.’s appeal against sentence it was submitted on his behalf that a non-custodial sentence
should have been imposed, having regard to his young age, his previous good character and the
views of the complainant’s parents that they did not want him to receive a custodial sentence,
though by the time the appeal was heard the latter argument had proved to be based on a mis-
understanding – in truth, the parents wanted F. to receive proper treatment and were not
concerned whether he received that intervention in custody or the community. When the
matter reached the Court of Appeal, F. was aged 13. The Court was informed that with eight
To continue reading
Request your trial