Sarah's Law

I am getting a little concerned that in our anxiety to be seen to be doing anything to stop child molestation we are inching away from the sort of fair and just society that those children would want to grow up in.

Sarah’s Law, named after Sarah Payne, who was killed by a convicted paedophile, is a diluted copy of Megan’s Law in the US (where they publish the whereabouts of people convicted of paedophilia). It has been on trial in 4 areas of the country for 18 months. It is reported that 585 enquiries were made to the police in Cleveland, Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire and Hampshire. Of those, 315 were investigated by police and 21 turned out to relate to people who are on the sex offenders' register for offences against children. A further 11 related to people with criminal convictions for other offences, such as violence. The law is now to be extended - 'rolled out' is the term they use - to the rest of the country.

We need to have a careful look at this. Here is what the Government website says:

‘The disclosure pilot is intended to test the effectiveness of giving parents, carers and guardians a more formal way of requesting information about people who are involved in their family life – specifically if they are concerned that a person is a child sexual offender.

If police checks show that someone has a record for offences that may put a child at risk, the authorities will consider sharing this information with the child’s parent, carer or guardian.’

The first thing is ‘people who are on the sex offenders' register for offences against children’. Now, you can be on the sex offenders’ register for other things than offences against children. Many people have been persuaded to go on it: sad people who spend a little too much time looking through the fence at the school playground are taken away by police and threatened that they might be prosecuted (even though there would be no chance of a prosecution being allowed, much less successful) unless they agree to go on the register; people who have viewed photographs of children on their computers (Pete Townsend, the guitarist, is one) but would never commit an offence against a child. One person is on the sex offender’s register for smacking an unruly child in a supermarket. Are these people to be investigated and their names given to parents?

Suppose you committed a robbery with violence. You would presumably come under Sarah’s Law under ‘for offences that may put a child at risk,’ – indeed one such case cropped up in the trial period – even though you have never committed violence against a child and never would.

What do you do then, if you have served your time and will never err again, or have seen some dirty photos, or you have simply smacked your child? You could be hounded from neighborhood to neighborhood, never being allowed to settle as your record – extending far past the Statute of Limitations – follows you.

Now it may well be that the authorities will act sensibly and refuse most requests, keeping their investigations and the release of personal data to those who have genuine, regular access to children and are genuinely likely to put them at risk. But nothing in the hysteria we have already seen would give one confidence about this. Parliament should keep a close watch on how this is proceeding and if necessary issue restrictions on its operation.