![The Sexual Offences Bill [HL]: Policy Background](http://data.docslib.org/img/e8290faf5c93257b460150a7cbbc31ff-1.webp)
RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 The Sexual Offences Bill 10 JULY 2003 [HL]: Policy Background
Bill 128 2002-03
The Sexual Offences Bill 2002-03 is the culmination of principally two reviews, on sexual offences and the management of sex offenders. This paper provides background to these reviews, outlining current legislation and areas where the Government have identified a need for change.
Available statistical information on sexual offences and sex offenders is discussed.
The Bill as presented in the House of Lords is described in outline. Information on its subsequent passage through the Lords and a discussion of some of the main issues raised appear in Library Research Paper 03/62.
Gavin Berman
SOCIAL AND GENERAL STATISTICS SECTION Grahame Danby
HOME AFFAIRS SECTION
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY
RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Recent Library Research Papers include:
03/46 Scottish Parliament Elections: 1 May 2003 14.05.03 03/47 Unemployment by Constituency, April 2003 14.05.03 03/48 Enlargement and the European Union (Accessions) Bill [Bill 98 of 2002-03] 19.05.03 03/49 Whither the Civil Service? 20.05.03 03/50 The Conflict in Iraq 23.05.03 03/51 Iraq: law of occupation 02.06.03 03/52 The Courts Bill [HL] [Bill 112 of 2002-03] 05.06.03 03/53 The euro: background to the five economic tests 04.06.03 03/54 Employment Equality Regulations: Religion and Sexual Orientation 06.06.03 03/55 Unemployment by Constituency, May 2003 11.06.03 03/56 The Convention on the Future of Europe: institutional reform 12.06.03 03/57 Economic Indicators [includes article: The RPI to HICP – a new inflation 01.07.03 measure for the UK] 03/58 The draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution: Parts II and III 07.07.03 03/59 UK Election Statistics: 1945-2003 07.07.03 03/60 The draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution: technical and 07.07.03 constitutional issues in Parts I and IV
Research Papers are available as PDF files:
• to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site, URL: http://www.parliament.uk • within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet, URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk
Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on Research Papers should be sent to the Research Publications Officer, Room 407, 1 Derby Gate, London, SW1A 2DG or e-mailed to [email protected]
ISSN 1368-8456 2 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Summary of main points
The Sexual Offences Bill [HL], Bill 128 2002-03 aims to modernise the law on sexual offences and to deter and manage sex offenders.
Key themes are:
• protection of children and other vulnerable people
• widening the law on rape and changing the permissible defences in relation to consent
• making the law more gender-neutral, repealing, for example, offences applying specifically to gay men
• tightening notification requirements on sex offenders and widening registration to those convicted overseas
The need for change was highlighted by, principally two, public consultations. A review of sex offences was set up by the Government in 1999, the independent review group producing a consultation paper, Setting the Boundaries, in July 2000. A public consultation closed in March 2001.
In addition the Government carried out a Review of the Sex Offenders Act and proposals were published for public consultation by Home Office in July 2001. During the period of this review ongoing changes were made to the criminal justice system and legislation
These two reviews fed into a white paper, Protecting the Public (Cm 5668), published in November 2002. This presaged the Sexual Offences Bill 2002-03.
This paper provides an overview of the policy debate, including the criminal justice statistics that inform it. Two appendices provide a summary of the present law on sexual offences and a bibliography.
3 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
4 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
CONTENTS
I Setting the Boundaries 7
A. Child protection 8
B. Vulnerable people 11
C. Rape 13
D. Prostitution 16
E. Homosexual offences 17
II Sex Offenders 20
A. Present law 20
1. Relevant offences 20 2. Notification period 21 3. Breach of registration/notification requirements 22 B. Supervision 22
C. Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels 25
D. Sarah’s law 26
E. Review of the Sex Offenders Act 28
III Protecting the Public 32
A. Commentary 37
IV Sexual Offences Bill 38
A. General 38
B. Commentary 41
V Statistics 44
A. Introduction 44
5 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
B. Offences recorded by the police, England and Wales 45
C. Other measures of crime 47
D. Court proceedings 49
E. Numbers found guilty or cautioned 49
F. Custody and reconviction 50
Appendix 1: Existing sexual offences legislation 63
Appendix 2: Further reading 65
6 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
I Setting the Boundaries
Published in July 2000, Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences represented completion of the first stage of a wide-ranging review of sex offences,1 its terms of reference having been announced by the then Home Secretary (Jack Straw)on 25 January 1999:
…“To review the sexual offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will:
Provide coherent and clear sexual offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation;
Enable abusers to be appropriately punished; and
Be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.”
The review will be conducted by a Steering Group of officials from relevant Departments and expert advisers. This Group will have the benefit of advice from an External Reference Group made up of individuals and organisations with experience, expertise and opinions on a range of issues relevant to the consideration of sexual offences. The review should take about a year to complete its work and its recommendations will form the basis of a consultation paper.2
That July 2000 paper3 set in train a public consultation which ended on 1 March 2001. Government and non-Government responses to consultation on the reform of the law on sex offences are available online.4 The consultation paper was accompanied by a brief summary report5 that acknowledged society’s influence on the criminal law on sexual offences.
Among the consultation paper’s 62 recommendations to Ministers, some of the more significant relate to rape, sexual assault and related issues of consent. Special cases clearly involve people with limited or no capacity to consent, such as children and people with mental disabilities. The proposed repeal of specifically homosexual offences, particularly when they take place in public, and a specific recommendation on indecent exposure are both areas that have attracted attention, the latter from naturists. Altogether, Setting the Boundaries elicited some 900 responses.6
1 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/vol1main.pdf 2 HC Deb 25 January 1999 cc 80-1W 3 op. cit. 4 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sexoffences_conresp.pdf 5 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/set_summ.pdf 6 Home Office, personal communication
7 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
A. Child protection
Police Research Series Paper 99, Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk (December 1998) reviewed the literature relating to sex offending against children. It comments that "The literature suggests that 60 to 70% of child molesters target only girls, about 20 to 33% boys, and about 10% children of either sex." (Fewer than 5% of sex offences against children are known to have been committed by women).
Under section 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 it is illegal for a man, or boy, to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen.7 The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment.8 There is the so-called "young man's defence"9 - applicable to a man between 16 and 24 who has reasonable grounds for believing the girl was above the age of consent. (Intercourse with a girl under thirteen is a felony under section 5 of the 1956 Act, to which the young man’s defence does not apply). A good deal of further background is given in chapter three of Setting the Boundaries. The paper notes the significant fall, in recent years, in prosecutions for unlawful sexual intercourse with girls:
3.2.10 We do not know why the numbers of prosecutions for usi should have fallen so significantly, but changing social attitudes to under-age sex, including whether the behaviour was regarded as criminal, may be one factor. These offences may also provide supporting charges in cases where rape is the main charge because, even if there was consent, if the girl was under 16 the offence of usi would have been committed if sex took place. Although the absolute numbers have declined, the proportion of prosecutions and convictions has remained stable (in sharp contrast to the changing pattern of rape cases). There is little doubt that teenagers are sexually active under the age of 16. The Teenage Pregnancy report showed that 28% of under age boys and 19% of under-age girls were sexually active in 1991 (this was part of an increasing trend). The Durex Global Sex Survey 1999 indicated that on average teenagers in the UK have their first sexual experience at 15.3 years – slightly later than the US and Canada, but earlier than most European countries (the global average was 15.9 years).
The House of Lords has discussed whether the current law is working satisfactorily:
Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the law which makes it an offence for girls under the age of 16 to have sexual intercourse with men is working satisfactorily.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as with all criminal charges, successful prosecution depends on the evidence that
7 a woman who has sexual intercourse with a boy under 16 would be committing an indecent assault; section 15 Sexual Offences Act 1956 8 life imprisonment if the girl is under 13 - section 5, Sexual Offences Act 1956 9 section 6(3), Sexual Offences Act 1956
8 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
is brought before the courts. Tackling sexual offending is a top priority for this Government. We are currently reviewing the sex offence laws and considering a range of proposed new offences in relation to sexual activity with children of both sexes under the age of 16. We intend to introduce modernised and strengthened legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.10
In response to a question from Baroness Blatch, Lord Falconer of Thoroton added:
My Lords, the police certainly have a duty to protect children and they would be the first to accept that. As regards their powers, as the Director of Public Prosecutions made clear subsequently, the need for the victim to complain or give evidence is not a legal requirement. However, the police and the prosecuting authorities must analyse the evidence objectively in such cases. They must decide in a particular case whether the absence of evidence from the complainant will lead to a reduced chance of conviction. If they come to that conclusion—that is a matter for them—they should not bring the prosecution because it would be damaging for everyone involved.11
Recommendations 19 and 20 in the review aim to complement and strengthen the existing protection for children:
Recommendation 19: There should be an offence of adult (over 18) sexual abuse of a child (under 16). The offence would cover all sexual behaviour that was wrong because it involved a child; it would complement other serious non- consensual offences such as rape, sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault.
Recommendation 20: There should no time limit on prosecution for the new offence of adult sexual abuse of a child.
A majority of respondents supported these recommendations, though there were reservations. For example, a fifteen year old might be deterred from seeking contraceptive advice when in a sexual relationship with an eighteen year old. Also, there is the issue of false allegations of childhood sexual abuse – a matter recently reported on by the Home Affairs Committee.12
The young man’s defence (at present only applicable to sex with girls) would be replaced by a restricted defence in relation to a child of either sex:
10 HL Deb 11 June 2002 cc 130-1 11 HL Deb 11 June 2002 c 132 12 Home Affairs Committee, The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes, HC 836 2001-02
9 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Recommendation 21: A mistake of fact in age should be available, but with the following restrictions: that it should be limited to honest and reasonable belief and that the defendant has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain age.
The review specifically sought responses on a further recommendation that there should be a limitation on the age of a defendant who could use this defence – a continuance of the young man’s defence in effect. Many respondents thought a five year differential to be appropriate, while others thought this arbitrary and liable to cause injustice.
An element of an age differential is retained with the recommendation of a separate, less serious, offence where the only parties involved are minors:
Recommendation 27: There should be an offence of sexual activity between minors to replace the existing offences of unlawful sexual intercourse, buggery, indecency with children and sexual activity prohibited for children. It should apply to children under the age 18 with those under the age of consent.
Though lowering the age of consent has been suggested from time to time,13 the review was quite explicit that it should remain at 16:
3.5.7 The age of consent has been intensely discussed in recent times, and in particular whether it should be different for different sexes. In line with our general principles of fairness, protection and justice, we see no strong argument or evidence for differentiating between boys and girls or types of sexual activity in setting an age of consent. Nor do we see any argument for reducing the age of consent – the variation in the rates at which children mature physically and emotionally varies greatly, making any age an arbitrary one. The present age of sixteen is well established, well understood and well supported. We think there is a real need to maintain an age of consent to ensure children are protected, and as a matter of public policy, the age of consent should remain at sixteen.14
While many European countries have lower ages of consent, comparisons are potentially misleading. For example, Spain has a low age of consent (12), but parental complaints relating to under 18s can leave the older person liable to prosecution. Other protections in Spain include a ban on seduction by deception until 16 and a prohibition on using an advantage of a relationship of superiority to violate an individual’s sexual liberty.15
Chapter 5 of Setting the Boundaries covers sexual abuse within the family, extending the law of incest and providing additional protection for children. Some problems identified with the current law on incest include its restriction to vaginal intercourse and to lineal blood relatives and siblings, excluding the looser family structures which are increasingly
13 "Storm over judge's call for age of consent to be lowered", Evening Standard, 26 July 2001 14 Home Office, Setting the Boundaries, July 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/sou/vol1main.pdf 15 http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/Summary%20information/age_of_consent.htm
10 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 a part of modern life. Children up to the age of 18 would be covered by a new offence of familial sexual abuse.
B. Vulnerable people
Chapter 4 of Setting the Boundaries focuses on vulnerable adults, particularly those with a mental impairment. The chapter begins by observing that the law seems to offer “only limited remedy” against sexual abuse of vulnerable people. A particularly difficult area lies in establishing a lack of consent on the part of the alleged victim.
Some may not have sufficient ability, knowledge and understanding to be able to consent to sex, and this chapter discusses how the law could define capacity to consent for very vulnerable people. There is no statutory definition and the meaning and effect of the common law is still the subject of legal debate.16
Section 4.2 of the chapter (reproduced in full below) summarises the present law, including an allusion to section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959, and problems with it:
4.2.1 At first glance, the law seems to offer protection.
• The Sexual Offences Act 1956 forbids intercourse with a ‘defective’ woman and procurement of a ‘defective’ woman, knowing that she is ‘defective’ (ss 6 and 7). It also makes specific provision for indecent assault on female and male ‘defectives’ (sections 14(3) and 15(3)); abduction of a ‘defective’ woman from parent or guardian (s 21); permitting a ‘defective’ woman to use premises for intercourse and causing or encouraging prostitution of a ‘defective’ woman (sections 27 and 29).
• The Sexual Offences Act 1967 does not permit mentally defective men to consent to homosexual acts (s1(3)).
• The Mental Health Act (MHA) 1959 (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967) prohibits male staff employed in mental hospitals and homes or those providing care for mental patients from having intercourse with male or female patients.
Most of these offences are little used, carry low penalties (2 years in the main) and are not perceived as providing effective protection.
4.2.2 All these offences (apart from the MHA 1959) relate to victims with a severe mental impairment. The definition of ‘defective’ is taken from the Mental Health Acts as a person suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning. Anyone who met this definition would be severely disabled. A key
16 ibid. para 4.1.4
11 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
point is, however, that in order for these offences to apply, it has to be proved that the victim is indeed ‘defective’ – a demeaning and derogatory term. This may be done by expert evidence but it may also involve the victim coming to court and being questioned in order to test his or her abilities – effectively putting that person on trial. Additionally, by being confined to those with a severe mental impairment, these offences do not protect other vulnerable people who have some degree of ability or capacity to consent to sexual relationships. We were told that those people can be easily induced or persuaded into a sexual relationship and are targeted by others for their own sexual gratification.
4.2.3 Several contributors felt that the law denied those with mental impairment the right to consensual sexual relationships. In part this seemed to be because medical and care staff could not be certain when such activity transgressed the law, and this is a major criticism of the present situation. Such protection has to be balanced against the right, set out in the ECHR, for individuals to have a private life. The existing offences are often gender-specific and hence create a patchwork of protection. The law should seek to protect all those who are vulnerable, regardless of gender, or the severity of their disability.
4.2.4 The lack of a clear definition in law of capacity to consent to sex makes it particularly hard to prosecute the most serious sex offences such as rape (which rely on proving lack of consent) when the victim is severely impaired and where there is no definition of capacity to consent. The purpose of the law, to protect the most vulnerable, can be lost in consideration of whether or not actively expressing sexuality was actually consent. In one recent case, it was held that there was no reason in law why a severely impaired woman should not consent to sex. That is why those offences intended to protect severely mentally impaired people do not require consent to be proved.
4.2.5 It is difficult to find any statistics on the extent and nature of sexual abuse of vulnerable people. We cannot identify whether any of the convictions for rape and indecent assault represent offences against vulnerable people. There were 6 prosecutions and 1 conviction for the specific offences of sex with a ‘defective’ in 1998. These statistics do not reveal the genuine extent of the problem. Abuse against vulnerable people may not come to light, and if it does is unlikely to be reported to the police. There are considerable difficulties in both investigation and prosecution, and because of evidential difficulties cases may not proceed to court. Research has estimated that the incidence of sexual abuse of people with disabilities may be as much as four times higher than within the non-disabled population. A high proportion of those in the research were women and girls, most of whom knew the person who abused them. Whatever the scope of abuse, it is clear it is extensive, and that the law does not provide a good remedy at present.
The chapter goes on to discuss the capacity to consent, and explicitly asked for views on this area “fraught with difficulty”.
12 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
C. Rape
In April 2002, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service published A Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases involving Allegations of Rape.17 It opens with some statistical background:
1.2 There are few offences that impact so severely on the victim. Whilst the number of reported rapes, 8,593, represents only 0.17% of all recorded crime, the enormity of the effect on victims and on the fear of crime amongst women goes to the heart of quality of life. As with other aspects of personal crime, there is undoubtedly substantial under-reporting. The Rape Crisis Federation of England and Wales in its Annual Report, for example, suggests that only 12% of the 50,000 women who contacted their services in 1998 reported the crime of rape to the police.
1.3 Over recent years the percentage of successful prosecutions for rape offences has shown a marked decline. The rate of conviction for rape, after trial, has decreased from one in three cases reported (33%) in 1977 to one in 13 (7.5%) in 1999. Furthermore, only one in five (20%) reported cases currently reaches the trial stage.
The sex offences review, Setting the Boundaries identifies several problems with rape law itself:
• The law did not offer appropriate protection against very serious assaults because the definition of rape as penile penetration of the vagina and anus meant that other kinds of extremely serious penetrative assaults could be prosecuted and sentenced as indecent assault only. This offence and the penalty it carried were not serious enough to deal with the worst cases;
• The nature and effect of sexual assaults of all kinds on the victim, both men and women, were not sufficiently understood by the law, despite the significant advances in understanding made in recent years; this impacted throughout the criminal justice system, including sentencing;
• The increase in reporting of rape and the reduction in the rate of convictions, has reduced confidence in the ability of the law to deliver justice to victims; although the numbers of reported rapes had increased significantly, the number of successful prosecutions had risen only slightly;
• The full legal meaning of consent was not clearly understood, and the doctrine of honest but mistaken belief in consent was widely criticised;
• The law was not sufficiently clear to ensure the protection of transsexuals;
17 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/CPSI_HMIC_Rape_Thematic.pdf
13 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• The sentencing of rape cases remained controversial, particularly where it involved those who had been married or in a relationship;
• The definition of indecent assault was too broad and complex;
• The gradual loss of the offence of assault to commit rape in the common law had left a gap in protection;
• The offence of burglary with intent to commit rape did not carry the requirement to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
The sex offences review includes several recommendations on rape law,18 including the following on the honest belief defence:
A defence of honest belief in free agreement should not be available where there was self induced intoxication, recklessness as to consent, or if the accused did not take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ascertain free agreement at the time.
A House of Lords judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions v Morgan19 established that in rape trial a subjective belief by the defendant that the victim consented to sexual intercourse afforded a defence (even if he had no reasonable grounds for that belief).20 The sex offences review document comments:
2.2.5 That judgement was controversial from the moment it was given. Many in the legal world accepted that it was a clear statement of the necessary guilty mind (mens rea) for rape and a logical expression of the subjectivism necessary for guilt. Whereas to others it was evidence that it did not matter what the victim said or did, however violated she was, there was no crime of rape. Mrs Justice Heilbron and the Advisory Committee on Rape [Cmnd 6352, December 1975] thought that the principle of the judgement was right, but that the mental element in rape should be clarified. This resulted in the explanation given in S1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 that:
“It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence (a) the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman or man was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.”
18 Home Office, Setting the Boundaries: summary report and recommendations, July 2000 19 [1976] AC 182 20 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010517/regina-1.htm
14 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
This effectively gave statutory force to the words of Lord Fraser that the reasonableness of any belief was a matter that the jury would have to consider.
A significant number of respondents to the sex offences review remained in favour or retaining the purely subjective test on the grounds that a defendant should not be criminally liable if he did not intend to commit the offence.
Another issue which has attracted division is whether rape should be subdivided into lesser and more serious offences. Some respondents thought a separate offence of “date rape” could result in more convictions, thereby providing more protection for victims. The sex offences review recommended no such grading of rape, a view subsequently echoed by the Sentencing Advisory Panel in its advice on sentencing of rape:
The Panel’s key recommendation is that, for sentencing purposes, ‘acquaintance rape’ and ‘relationship rape’ should be treated as being no less serious than ‘stranger rape’. This is based on the results of a research report commissioned by the Panel, which shows that rape is always seen as a very serious crime, and that the impact on the victim is just as great, whatever his or her relationship with the offender.21
On the definition of rape itself, the review recommended extending this to include oral penetration – adding to the inclusion, in 1994,22 of male rape and anal rape of a woman. Further background on the changing law is given in library research paper 93/100, Rape. Rape is well understood as a crime that can only be committed by a male; the sex offences review recommends additional gender-neutral offences of compelling another to perform sexual acts, with several levels of seriousness depending on the nature of the compelled acts.
One issue not covered by the review, though letters were received on it, relates to the identification of the defendant in rape trials, most obviously justifiable on the “justice should be seen to be done” principle.
The Heilbron Committee had recommended in 1975 that defendants should not enjoy anonymity. Even so, such anonymity was introduced in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (chapter 82).23 The Criminal Law Revision Committee subsequently (1984) recommended the defendant’s anonymity should be abolished;24 it was subsequently done by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (chapter 33).
21 Sentencing Advisory Panel Press Notice SAP 4/02, Panel publishes research report and advice to Court of Appeal, 24 May 2002 22 section 142, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 23 section 6 24 HL Deb 4 December 1985 c 1306
15 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 provides for the anonymity of complainants in rape cases. No such provision now exists for the defendant,25 though a judge can impose reporting restrictions under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (section 11).
D. Prostitution
Although prostitution is legal (and its proceeds taxable),26 there are several criminal offences closely associated27 with it, including:
• Living off the earnings of sex worker (prostitute) (section 30, Sexual Offences Act 1956)
• Directing and exercising control over a sex worker (section 31, Sexual Offences Act 1956)
• Living off the earnings of a male prostitute (section 5, Sexual Offences Act 1967)
• Keeping a disorderly house (brothel) (section 33, Sexual Offences Act 1956)
• Kerb crawling (when a man in a motor vehicle attempts to solicit a woman for the purposes of prostitution) (section 1, Sexual Offences Act 1985)
• Soliciting (section 1, Street Offences Act 1959)
Probably the single most significant of the above-mentioned statutes is the Sexual Offences Act 1956; sections 22-31 deal with prostitution and sections 33-36 cover brothels. There have from time to time been suggestions that the latter should be legalised under licence. The government-sponsored review of sexual offences merely acknowledged the intensity of the debate, and the diversity of views:
…We have recommended elsewhere that male and female prostitution should be regulated by the law in an equitable fashion. That may provide an opportunity to consider the wider aspects of the law on prostitution, which were beyond our remit to consider. Changes may be desirable but in a way which does not produce unintended adverse consequences for either those who are exploited through prostitution, or for the communities which can suffer its side effects. We
25 youths (under 18) are a special case: see, e.g., section 44, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (not yet in force) 26 Richard Goodhall, The Comfort of Sin, Renaissance Books 1995 p 107 27 Police Research Series Paper 134, For Love or Money: Pimps and the management of sex work (Home Office, 2000)
16 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
therefore recommend that there should be a further review of the law on prostitution.28
An overview29 of the subject (and proposals for reform) has also been provided by the International Union of Sex Workers.30
Relatively uncontentious recommendations in Setting the Boundaries were for a range of specific offences dealing with commercial sexual exploitation of children. These would protect anyone under the age of eighteen; possible issues cited included willing participation by people who, while younger, were above the age of consent (e.g. production of pornography for private use).
Recommendation 49 covers trafficking:
There should be a specific trafficking offence. This offence could involve bringing or enabling a person to move from one place to another for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation (e.g. knowingly facilitating transportation), for reward.
Any such new offence should have attached powers to trace assets overseas.
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has introduced a “stop gap” measure to this effect – though future changes in the law on sexual exploitation would necessitate modifications.
E. Homosexual offences
The review’s position on homosexual offences attracted a good deal of media attention. For example, a leader in the Express on 20 June 2002 commented:
…What individuals do in the privacy of their own home is not our concern and homosexuals should be allowed the same freedoms in this regard as heterosexuals. However, to allow gay men to have sex in public toilets simply because there is not a law to stop mixed sex couples from doing so is as preposterous as it is dangerous.
Public toilets are there as an amenity for adults and children. We should all be able to use them for their designated purpose without fear of stumbling across couples indulging in a sexual act. Rather than liberalising the law for homosexuals Mr Blunkett should tighten it up for everyone. Sex in a place as
28 op. cit. 29 http://www.iusw.org/policy/06_thelaws.html 30 http://www.iusw.org/
17 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
open as a public convenience should be outlawed, no matter what your sexual persuasion.31
Background to these, and other proposals in relation to homosexual offences was provided by Setting the Boundaries:
0.19 We looked at the way the law treats gender issues and those of differing sexual orientation. We thought that the law should offer protection to men and women, boys and girls and recommend:
• the criminal law should offer protection from all non-consensual sexual activity. It should not treat people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation. Consensual sexual activity between adults in private that causes no harm to themselves or others should not be criminal.
We therefore felt that the law did not need to make particular provision for any same sex behaviour and recommend that:
• the offences of gross indecency and buggery should be repealed; those aspects of the offences providing protection for children, vulnerable people and animals would be replaced by our other proposals.
• other specific offences such as section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 [assault with intent to commit buggery] and s4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 [procuring others to commit homosexual acts] will no longer be necessary and should be repealed.
The paper addressed the key question32 of whether it was right for the criminal law to be used to regulate consensual sexual behaviour between adults where there was no harm to either of them. It said that in a tolerant and diverse society, the law should be based on a public morality that protects the individual from danger, harm, fear or distress, with additional safeguards for the younger and frailer members of the community. Respect for private life meant that any regulation which was proposed must be limited to what was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the problem. Such a concept of the criminal law did not condone or advocate any particular form of sexual behaviour, but was based on principles of preventing harm and promoting public good. It gave an explanation of the existing illegality of homosexual acts in public lavatories:
Gross indecency (section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 – Indecency between men)
6.6.2 This section creates two offences: one of committing, or being party to the commission of, an act of gross indecency; and one of procuring such an act. The
31 “This is a freedom too far” (leader), Express, 20 June 2002 p 12 32 para 6.2.4
18 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
offence is not committed if both parties are over 18 and the activity takes place in private. The definition of privacy in the Act makes it illegal for homosexual acts to take place:
(a) Where more than 2 persons take part or are present;
(b) In a lavatory where the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise.
6.6.3 These definitions mean that any kind of group or observed activity between men, however much it is conducted in conditions of actual privacy, is illegal. No such provisions exist for heterosexual or lesbian activity (except for anal intercourse, see below). The definition was included in the Sexual Offences Bill 1967 to meet fears about homosexual clubs and displays of sex. This provision has been the subject of a challenge to the ECHR, in the case of ADT v UK[33] as a potential breach of Article 8, the right to a private life, and Art 14, discrimination in the enjoyment of those rights. We did not think its retention is justified in public policy terms. Other aspects of the offence relate to sexual activity in public, which raises very different concerns, and these are discussed in Chapter 8.
Section 8.4 of Setting the Boundaries deals with sexual activity in public. Whether homosexual or heterosexual this is proscribed both by common law34 and by statute35 – the review team acknowledged, though, concerns that the law as it stands can be used against gay men in a discriminatory and unjust way; it recommends the abolition of the gay-specific offences of gross indecency and buggery and soliciting by a man “for immoral purposes” embodied in sections 12, 13, and 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The consultation document went on to recommend to Ministers that sex in public should remain illegal, and that a new offence should be introduced:
Sexual behaviour in public should fall within the criminal law – society requires controls on overt sexual behaviour in public because of its effect on others. However, that criminal law should apply to all sexual behaviour in public and not in particular to same sex behaviour…
… A new public order offence should be created to deal with sexual behaviour that a person knew or should have known was likely to cause distress, alarm or offence to others in a public place.
33 in July 2000 the ECHR ruled that a British man, "ADT", had suffered a violation of his right to respect for his private life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Up to 5 men in total had been present during a homosexual orgy in ADT’s home. Further details are available on the ECHR website, Application No. 35765/97 http://www.stonewall.org.uk/docs/ADT.doc 34 common law offences of outraging public decency and public nuisance 35 section 5 of the Public Order Act – behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace
19 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
II Sex Offenders
Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 introduced a requirement for certain sex offenders to register with the police and keep them notified of changes of name or address for a set length of time. It applies throughout the United Kingdom, though its detailed operation varies to take into account different laws on sexual offences. (Part II of the Act provides the jurisdiction for the prosecution here of British residents or citizens who commit sex offences abroad.) Unless stated otherwise the discussion here will be in the context of England and Wales. A consultation paper36 on the review of the 1997 Act, published in July 2001, afforded an opportunity for input from respondents in all parts of the UK. The consultation period closed on 19 October 2001, and a summary of responses, including the Government’s, is available online.37
A. Present law
The police have always kept records of people’s convictions, for sexual and other offences, and these records are now stored on the Police National Computer. The innovation of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was to require people to register their date of birth, name and address with the police when they were convicted of certain sexual offences. These people are then required to keep the police notified of any subsequent changes to their names or home addresses for a specified length of time, so that the existing police records can be kept up to date.
It is a conviction itself rather than the notification requirement of the 1997 Act which triggers, for example, the ability of certain employers (in particular those involved in work with children) to request criminal records checks on potential employees.38 Home Office guidance to the police states that information they hold as a result of the 1997 Act should only be revealed where the risk to the public or to sections of the public outweigh the offender's right to privacy.39 The public does not have any right of access to the information held by the police on the whereabouts of sex offenders (see below).
1. Relevant offences
Section 1 of the 1997 Act indicates those offenders who are subject to the notification requirement. This covers those who, on or after commencement of the Act, are convicted of a specified offence; or cautioned in respect of such an offence which, at the time when the caution is given, he has admitted; or found not guilty by reason of insanity; or who are
36 Home Office, Scottish Executive, Consultation paper on the review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, July 2001 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/revsoa97.pdf 37 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sexoffenders_conresp.pdf 38 For further information see another Library standard note, Employer access to criminal records, SN/BT/247, 14 February 2003 39 Sex Offenders Act 1997, Home Office Circular 39/1997, 8 August 1997, Appendix A: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc9739.html
20 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 unfit to plead but found to have done the act charged; and those who are, on commencement, still in contact with the criminal justice system, whether awaiting sentence, in prison, subject to supervision, serving a community sentence, detained in hospital or subject to guardianship under mental health legislation.
The court has no discretion over whether or not an offender should be required to register under the Act. If a person is convicted of one of the offences listed in Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act (or admits and is cautioned, etc, for such an offence) he will automatically be subject to the registration requirements. If his offence is not one of those listed in the Act, he cannot have this requirement imposed upon him - his details will still appear on the police computers, but he will not be obliged to inform the police of any changes to his name or address.
The list of offences which trigger the registration requirement is in certain cases qualified by the age of the offender or the other party, or the sentence imposed.40 Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 lists the relevant offences in England and Wales; these include:
• Rape • Buggery a,b • Assault with intent to commit buggery b • Gross indecency between men a,b • Indecent assault on a man or a woman c • Incest by a manb • Intercourse with a girl under 13 • Intercourse with a girl aged 13, 14 or 15a • Indecency with child under 16 • Causing or encouraging prostitution of/intercourse with/indecent assault on girl under 16 • Offences relating to indecent photographs of children • Abuse of a position of trust a
a where offender is over 20 b where other party is under 18 c where other party is under 18, or the offender is or has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 30 months or more, or is or has been admitted to a hospital subject to a restriction order
2. Notification period
The length of time for which an offender remains under the obligation to notify the police depends on the length of the sentence imposed, and ranges from 5 years (2 ½ years for young offenders) to indefinite:
40 Sexual Offences Act 1997 Schedule 1
21 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Sentence imposed Notification period
Life imprisonment Indefinite Imprisonment for 30 months or more Indefinite Admission to hospital subject to restriction order Indefinite Imprisonment for between 6 and 30 months 10 years Imprisonment for less than 6 months 7 years Admission to hospital without being subject to restriction order 7 years Any other sentence 5 years
For young offenders (those under 18 at the time of the conviction/finding/caution), the periods of 10, 7 and 5 years are reduced to 5, 3 ½ and 2 ½ years respectively.41 Neither the court nor the police have any discretion to vary any of these periods.
As is clear from this table, the determining factor is the period of imprisonment to which the person was sentenced. The length of time he actually spent in prison is immaterial.
3. Breach of registration/notification requirements
Section 3 of the 1997 Act states that it is an offence to fail ‘without reasonable excuse’ to comply with the notification requirements of the Act. The maximum sentence for this offence is now five years’ imprisonment and/or and unlimited fine.
B. Supervision
Already, special provisions for extended supervision (by the Probation Service) of some sex offenders apply, for example by virtue of section 85, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The sexual offences to which these existing provisions apply include those identified in child protection legislation.42 Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 places a duty on the police and probation service to produce a risk management strategy for relevant sexual or violent offenders. He goes on to suggest ways in which this co-operation could be taken forward and placed on a further statutory footing.43 A written answer discusses the existing arrangements:
Multi-agency public protection arrangements provide for the risk assessment of all potentially dangerous offenders. Following this a management plan is formulated according to the level and nature of risk that the offender poses. Typically, this would have components of monitoring, interventions designed to reduce re-offending and steps necessary to protect victims or potential victims. After the risk assessment, if it is in the interest of public protection, the police may also disclose information about the offender to relevant members of the
41 1997 Act, section 4(2) 42 section 161, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 43 Home Office, Making punishments work: report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales, July 2001, para 7.25 (effective supervision)
22 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
community. Social Service departments who are the lead agency for child protection are members of the multi-agency public protection panels.44
Section 66 (and Schedule 5) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 amended the Sex Offenders Act 1997 by introducing restraining orders; the (Crown) Court can make one at point of sentencing, prohibiting the offender from doing anything described in the order on release.
If an offender is subject to a probation order (now called community rehabilitation orders) then it is possible that one of the requirements of this relates to residence. In such circumstances a probation officer can direct the offender to reside at a certain place, and no move might be made without gaining the officer's permission.
Another option is the sex offender order. Under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a chief officer of police may apply to a magistrates’ court for a sex offender order (‘SOO’) to be imposed on a sex offender who has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him. Again, this behaviour need not be criminal. Further information is given in Home Office Circular 66/2002.45 This notes:
The application for a sex offender order is "by complaint" which means it is a civil matter. However, following the House of Lords’ judgement in the case of McCann, we are advised that the criminal standard of proof should be applied. Despite this, hearsay evidence will continue to be admissible.
The definition of 'sex offender' is given in section 3(1), as a person who has committed a sexual offence to which the registration provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 apply. This ‘triggering’ offence could have been committed at any time (and even abroad), not necessarily since the 1998 Act came into force.
The contents of an SOO are left to the discretion of the courts, although section 2(4) provides that the conditions would have to be necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm from the defendant. SOOs cannot be punitive or impose positive obligations. An SOO might, for example, prohibit the person concerned from loitering near schools or playgrounds. One sex offender in Wales was made subject to an SOO prohibiting him from taking a puppy out for a walk, displaying teddy bears in his windows, standing outside shops which may be visited by children, going near to any children’s play area, or going within 50 metres of any school.46
44 HC Deb 13 March 2002 c 1102 45 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc6602_guidance.pdf 46 ‘Restrictions put on paedophile’s life’, Western Mail 4 August 1999
23 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
An SOO would initially be imposed for a minimum of five years, although it could be discharged within that time if both the police and the person to whom it applied consented. Under section 2(6), an SOO could be varied at any time.
Breach of an SOO without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.47 As with ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders), the court would not be able to grant a conditional discharge for a breach of an order.
Figures on the number of sex offender orders have been given in a written answer:
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex offender orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement.
Beverley Hughes: We have been informed of 96 sex offender orders made by the courts between 1 December 1998, when the provisions were implemented, and 31 December 2001. Figures by police force area are not available for the entire period.
We have been informed of three successful breach prosecutions during 1999 and 21 during 2000, the most recent period for which published data are available. We have a provisional figure of 28 further prosecutions for the first three quarters of 2001. These data are not available broken down by area. Information on discharges of sex offender orders is not routinely collected.48
Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the courts are obliged to have regard to sex offenders’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights – though there are clearly occasions when competing rights of society at large can prevail.
The following extract from Consultation Paper on the Review of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (Home Office, July 2001) gives more information:
The impact of the Human Rights Act 2000 (HRA) on the SOA 7. The HRA was incorporated into national law in October 2000 and requires, amongst other provisions, that
• individuals should not be punished twice for the same offence
• punishment should be proportionate to the offence
47 for conviction on indictment only - the maximum penalty for summary conviction is six months imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine 48 HC Deb 8 May 2002 c 233W
24 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• no-one should be convicted of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence when it was committed nor should a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time of commission.
Challenges to the SOA on human rights grounds have been successfully resisted because the registration requirement has been seen as an administrative consequence of a sentence passed by the court, rather than being a separate sentence in its own right. Were the registration requirement to become more onerous, there could come a point at which the Act could no longer be seen as an administrative requirement. A balance has, therefore, to be maintained between maximising the contribution of the SOA to protecting the public and ensuring that individual rights under the HRA are not infringed. The current review of the SOA was conducted within this frame of reference.
Finally, exclusion orders are provided for by insertions to the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 made by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (section 46, not yet in force). This new kind of order would be able to prohibit an offender from entering a specified place or area.
C. Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels
Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 imposes on Chief Police Officers and local probation boards an obligation to establish arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by relevant offenders, including sex offenders. Associated guidance issued by the Home Secretary includes among the minimum requirements the establishment an agreement of systems and processes for a Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel for the highest risk cases:
It is important for consistency that the multi-agency meeting arrangements made for the highest risk offenders in each area must be referred to as Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP). Agencies attending MAPPPs will at a minimum be police and probation services, but may - and often should - also include Social Services, Health, Local Authority Housing departments and other statutory and voluntary agencies locally determined. The role of the MAPPP at a minimum is to:
Share information on those offenders referred to it.
Decide upon the level of risk posed by the offender.
Recommend the action necessary to manage the risk including any contingencies.
Monitor and ensure implementation of the agreed action.
Review the level of risk and the action plan in the light of changes in circumstances or behaviour. Consider and manage necessary resources.
25 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Consider need for community disclosure and other community
Agree a media strategy where appropriate49
More information on the multi-agency public protection panels may be gleaned from their annual reports.50
The following quotes from two Guardian articles, from December 2001, bring together key issues:
In a move designed to reassure the public, each local authority is also required to set up a multi-agency public protection panel, headed by the police and probation service, which, from April, will issue an annual report detailing the number of paedophiles living in each police force area, and the number of schools, neighbours and communities issued with warnings about the whereabouts of sex offenders.51
But the home secretary made clear yesterday that while he was giving parents a voice in the "multi-agency public protection panels", which decide what arrangements should be made for the supervision of released paedophiles, he was not going as far as "Sarah's Law".52
D. Sarah’s law
Following the murder of Sarah Payne in July 2000 the News of the World said that it would “name and shame” all sex offenders convicted of offences against children in the UK. It went on to publish photographs and other information about a number of sex offenders. The newspaper’s campaign generated considerable controversy and there was a number of vigilante attacks on alleged sex offenders in various parts of the country. The News of the World and a number of other newspapers then went on to campaign for the enactment of “Sarah’s law” - a general public right of access to information about the whereabouts of sex offenders.
On 15 September 2000 the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, announced a package of measures intended to strengthen the protection of children and provide better information to the public on the management of sexual and violent offenders in the community.53
49 Home Office, Initial Guidance to the Police and Probation Services on Sections 67 & 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 50 for example, Multi Agency Public Protection Panel: Derbyshire MAPPP Annual Report 2002, http://www.onlinemappa.co.uk/pdfs/derbyshire.pdf 51 "Argument rages over Sarah's law", Guardian, 13 December 2001 http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4319453,00.html 52 "Parents to get seat on paedophile panels", Guardian, 17 December 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,619776,00.html 53 Home Office press release 283/2000, Government proposals better to protect children, 15 September 2000
26 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
However, he said that he had decided against permitting some form of controlled public access to the sex offenders’ register. The Home Office press notice quoted him as saying:
These proposals have come about after close consultation with the police and probation services. As part of this, I have considered very closely the question whether there could be some form of controlled access to the Sex Offenders' Register. But in practice controlling such access would be impossible to enforce. The arguments against a general right of access are well rehearsed. Such an arrangement would not in our judgement assist the protection of children or public safety.
Controlled disclosure is I believe the better and safer route. Therefore I have concluded that the professional agencies - the police and probation services - are best placed to determine the disclosure of information on individual sex offenders.
But I do believe that the public should have a right to know what measures the police and probation services have in place to protect the public. The guidance which I will issue will also include the question of disclosure of information to groups or individuals and will help to develop a consistent approach. The introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau will enable better information to be provided.54
A written answer in January 2002 indicated no change in the Government's basic position against the introduction of a "Sarah's law":
Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to her statement of 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 7, on sex offenders, for what reason she has concluded that it is not in the interests of child protection to make people's names and addresses widely accessible in the community; and if she will make a statement.
Beverley Hughes: The police already have and use the power to disclose information to members of the public about sex offenders in the community where, in their judgment, it is necessary to do so to prevent a crime from being committed. We believe, in common with the public protection agencies, that making information about sex offenders widely available would hinder child protection rather than helping it. Offenders subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 would be less likely to comply with those requirements if they knew their details would be publicly available, and might be driven into hiding due to fear of vigilante action. Sex offenders in this situation would not then be subject to the inhibiting controls of the public protection agencies and, for example, would be less likely to undertake treatment due to a fear of being identified. As a result, they would pose a greater risk to children.
54 ibid.
27 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
This conclusion is borne out by the experience following the News of the World's sex offender campaigns in 1998 and 2000. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation provided anecdotal evidence about the effects of those campaigns, including that a number of high risk sex offenders lost contact with the public protection agencies; many others who were previously participating in treatment programmes stopped doing so for fear of being identified; a number of serious assaults on people who were mistaken for sex offenders took place; and the families, who in some cases had been the victims of sex offenders, were also assaulted and abused by members of the public. All these factors are deeply regrettable but perhaps the most regrettable potential consequence of community notification is that children will be placed at greater risk from sex offenders who are not complying with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act.
The National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has also recently published a report on the community notification system in the United States (Megan's Law). That report concludes:
"There is very little evidence to substantiate claims that community notification enhances child safety".55
Unsurprisingly, the efficacy of Megan’s law remains an area of debate and a focus for much academic research.56
E. Review of the Sex Offenders Act
A review of the effectiveness of the registration and notification provisions of the 1997 Act was subsequently carried out by the Home Office. It had been announced in June 2000 by Charles Clarke, then Minister of State at the Home Office, and was intended to identify any areas of weakness in the legislation and to maximise its effectiveness. A range of organisations, including government departments, relevant professional organisations and children’s charities was involved in the review process.
While the review was beginning its work, the death of Sarah Payne in July 2000 prompted widespread public concern about the dangers posed by sex offenders. In response, the Government introduced, in autumn 2000, a number of amendments to the then Criminal Justice and Courts Services Bill to strengthen the 1997 Act. These changes anticipated some of the work of the review, and included:
• a reduction in the period during which initial notification must be made, from 14 days to 3 days;
• a new requirement that initial notification be made in person;
55 HC Deb 15 January 2002 cc 182-3W 56 Ray Pawson, Does Megan’s Law Work, ESRC 2002 www.evidencenetwork.org
28 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• a new power for the police on initial notification to take fingerprints and photographs of offenders;
• a new requirement that notification of relevant information be made at a prescribed police station;
• a new power for the police to arrest offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements;
• maximum sentence for offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the notification requirements raised to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine (previously six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000);
• a new power for courts on convicting an offender of a relevant sexual offence to impose a restraining order on him; and
• a new requirement that a relevant offender must notify the police of his intention to leave the United Kingdom for eight days or longer, and of his return.
These new provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 came into force on 1 June 2001.
The Review team subsequently completed its work and published its recommendations for public consultation in July 2001.57 Some of the main recommendations of the Review were:
• those convicted of violent offences with a sexual motivation should be required to register;
• those convicted of indecent assault should be subject to the registration requirement where the sentence is a period of imprisonment of any length;
• those under 20 should not be required to register for certain sex offences;
• indecent exposure should remain excluded from the list of offences triggering the registration requirement;
• certain of the new sex offences now contained in the Sexual Offences Bill should automatically trigger the registration requirement, whereas others should only do so if certain age, sentence or motive thresholds are met;
57 Home Office, Scottish Executive, Consultation paper on the review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, July 2001
29 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• the definition of ‘home address’ should be broadened to include itinerant and homeless offenders;
• the offender should be required to notify the police of a change of name or address in person at designated police stations rather than by post;
• the time limit within which the registered offender should be required to notify the police of a change of address should be reduced from 14 days to 8;
• no longer than twelve months from registration or re-registration, the offender must confirm in person to the police that the details held about them are correct, and this should continue to occur within every subsequent twelve-month period following a reminder from the police;
• the way the registration requirements apply to children and young persons should be reviewed, and a range of orders should be available as alternatives to a fine for breach of the registration requirement by children and young persons;
• registration should be available for those convicted abroad of offences equivalent to those in the UK which trigger the registration requirement; and
• cautions and conditional discharges should trigger certain registration requirements.
Following responses to the consultation, the Government decided to proceed along the lines of the majority of these proposals. However, the solutions adopted were not always the same as those recommended in the review. This was partly due to a need to combine the results of the sex offender registration review and the broader Setting the Boundaries review of sexual offences.
On 2 October 2002, the Home Secretary announced plans to tighten the sex offenders’ “register”:
New measures to strengthen the Sex Offenders' Register and make more offenders subject to its strict requirements were announced today by the Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The courts will be given new powers to force those convicted of relevant sex offences outside the UK to register as offenders in Britain, even if no crime has been committed here.
At the same time all sex offenders on the register will be made to attend a police station in person every 12 months to confirm their personal details, regardless of whether their details have altered. The police will have the opportunity to take fingerprints and photographs at each registration to help them confirm identity.
30 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
The Sex Offenders Act already requires convicted sex offenders to notify the police of any change to their name and address, and anyone who fails to do so is committing a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. While the system of sex offender registration has a compliance rate of over 97%, the new requirements are designed to provide further safeguards against evasion, deception and false identity.
The measures will form part of a package of wide-ranging legislative proposals to strengthen the law on sex offences and sex offenders, due to be published by the Government this Autumn.58
The consequent paper, discussed in the following section, also gave the following summary of government action to protect the public:
What the Government has already done to protect the public
• The Government has already strengthened the arrangements for managing sex offenders, in particular to improve the protection of children. In the past 5 years we have:
• Established multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) requiring by law the police and probation services to manage the risks posed by offenders in the community
• Introduced sex offender orders to restrict the activities of sex offenders living in the community
• Introduced sex offender restraining orders which set restrictions on a sex offender’s future behaviour at the time of sentencing
• Strengthened the registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 including: reducing the time for initial registration and requiring this to be made in person; requiring notification of overseas travel; and increasing the maximum penalty for failure to comply with these requirements to 5 years imprisonment
• Introduced arrangements to consult and inform victims about the release of offenders
• Brought in disqualification orders prohibiting unsuitable people from working with children
• Set up the Criminal Records Bureau - a one stop shop providing checks on people who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults
58 Home Office press release 264/2002, New moves to tighten sex offenders’ ‘register’ – Home Secretary, 2 October 2002
31 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• Introduced extended post-release supervision of up to 10 years for sex offenders
• Expanded places on sex offender treatment programmes in prisons
• Established accredited sex offender treatment programmes in the probation service
• Increased the maximum penalties for taking, making and distributing indecent photographs of children from 3 years to 10 years imprisonment and for possession from 6 months to 5 years imprisonment
• Established a task force on child protection on the internet and supported the setting up of the Internet Watch Foundation
• Provided powers of arrest for customs officers and police when dealing with the importation of child pornography
• Run a £1.5 million public awareness campaign to help young people to surf the web safely.59
III Protecting the Public
In June 2002, the Home Secretary alluded to both the main reviews: on sex offences and on sex offenders:
Ann Keen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish a response to the consultation on the review of sexual offences, "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences"; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Blunkett: I intend to publish a response to the consultation and the recommendations in "Setting the Boundaries", setting out proposals for legislation in the autumn. At the same time, I shall publish proposals for reform of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 following the review of its provisions and subsequent consultation. I will introduce modernised and strengthened legislation on sex offences and sex offenders as soon as parliamentary time allows. 60
On the same day speaking at the Metropolitan Police Conference on Modernising the Criminal Justice he said:
59 Protecting the Public Cm 5668, November 2002 60 HC Deb 19 June 2002 c405W
32 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
I am in the process of finalising proposals to update centuries old, outdated law on sex offences. We are balancing here the toughening of protection, particularly for children, while ensuring the law is fair and non- discriminatory and reflects the 21st rather than the 19th century view of social policy.
Following widespread consultation over the past two years, I will be publishing a summary of responses to the public consultation and a paper detailing Government proposals in the Autumn.61
The consultations of sexual offences and sex offenders culminated in a white paper, Protecting the Public (Cm 5668, November 2002).62 Among the key themes that can be identified are child protection, rape, and homosexual offences. The specific contents reflected broad acceptance of the recommendations of the sexual offences review. The only review recommendations disagreed with outright related to the application and practice of a defence of mistake of fact in age for offences against children over 13. The Government also considered unnecessary recommendation 25 of the sex offences review for a new offence of persistent abuse of a child reflecting a course of conduct. This is already effectively covered by the current practice of trying a defendant on multiple counts relating to specific incidents over a period of time.63
The white paper contains a short overview which draws attention to a wider government strategy to protect society from dangerous offenders. Another white paper, Justice for All, includes other measures such as indeterminate “public protection” sentences, “special” determinate sentences with extended supervision, and amending the rule against double jeopardy. The Criminal Justice Bill 2002-03 is the main implementing vehicle here.
On the need to reform the law on the actual sexual offences, the overview noted falling conviction rates for rape, and noted a government action plan64 to implement recommendations in a recent HMIC/CPSI report.65 Greater clarity was needed over issues of consent. Reference was also made to “media misrepresentation” over cottaging66 and gay sex in public.
61 “Balance of rights essential to effective justice”, 19 June 2002, Home Office Press Notice 163/2002 62 http://www.protectingthepublic.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp 63 Home Office, Responses to ‘Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences’ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sexoffences_conresp.pdf 64 Home Office / Court Service / CPS, Action Plan to implement the recommendations of the HMCPSI/HMIC joint investigation into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape, July 2002 65 HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service, A Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases involving Allegations of Rape, April 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/CPSI_HMIC_Rape_Thematic.pdf 66 cottaging: using public toilets as venues for sexual activity
33 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
The white paper provided a summary of ongoing measures to strengthen the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, including development of a new database, VISOR,67 that would be akin to a national sex offenders register. One proposal was to make it possible for both sex offender orders and sex offender restraining orders to be made against anyone “who has been convicted of a serious violent offence if there is evidence that they present a risk of causing serious sexual harm.” A new order would be introduced that could apply to those convicted of sex offences overseas.
Chapter 2 of the white paper deals with clarifying the law on consent. The age of consent would remain at 16 and any sexual activity with someone under that age would continue to be unlawful, regardless of the sex of either party. Non-consensual offences, such as rape, would automatically apply to sexual activity with a child under 13. In cases where the partners were both children and apparently consenting, the CPS would continue to be able to exercise discretion in deciding whether a prosecution was in the public interest.
The Government also proposed introducing in statute a list of circumstances which would trigger a (rebuttable) presumption that consent was absent – for example if the victim was unconscious. The current honest belief in consent defence was criticised and believed to contribute to low conviction rates for rape.
34. We will therefore alter the test to include one of reasonableness under the law. This will make it clear that, where the prosecution can prove that there is reasonable room for uncertainty about whether someone was consenting and that the defendant did not take reasonable action in the circumstances to ensure that the other person was willing to take part in the sexual acts, he will commit an offence. “Reasonable” will be judged by reference to what an objective third party would think in the circumstances. The jury would however have to take into account the actions of both parties, the circumstances in which they have placed themselves and the level of responsibility exercised by both. The jury would also expect, where relevant, to take account of the circumstances in which the accusation or revelation is delivered (including any media involvement) and the time that has elapsed.
The white paper summarised recent measures to support victims of sex crime, and to encourage them to come forward. It also addressed the issue of whether the accused in sexual cases should enjoy anonymity, adding:
We are minded to retain the existing format in regard to anonymity for defendants as no other category of offence is dealt with in this way. However we are still prepared to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on the matter.
Both chapter 3 (non-consensual offences) and chapter 4 (special protection for children and the most vulnerable) have consent at their cores. Non-consensual offences would
67 violent and sex offender register
34 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 include sexual assault and rape, the latter widened to include penile penetration of the mouth, and sexual assault by penetration (by other body parts or objects). A new offence of causing another person to perform an indecent act without consent would, in the context of unwilling penetration, carry a maximum penalty of life. These non-consensual offences would automatically apply if the victim was under 13. For older children below the age of consent (16) new offences – adult sexual activity with a child or sexual activity between minors – could be charged.
The white paper proposed amending the statutory defences of mistaken belief in age – for example the “young man’s defence”:
56. We will also amend the law with respect to the defence of mistaken belief in the age of the child. There are currently two statutory defences of mistaken belief in age. One is the so called “young man’s defence” which can be raised in relation to a charge of sexual intercourse with a girl aged 13-15 where the accused was under 24 at the time of the alleged offence, had reasonable cause to believe the girl was over the age of consent, and had not previously been charged with a like offence. The second exception is in the abuse of a position of trust offence in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which allows for the defence to state that the accused did not know and could not have been expected to know that the child was under 18.
57. However, two recent House of Lords cases have altered the law by reading into statutory provisions a requirement for the prosecution to prove the absence of an honest (although not necessarily reasonable) belief that the child was 16 or over. It is our intention to change this. For the offences of abuse of a position of trust and familial sexual abuse of a child, the defendant will have to prove that he held an honest and reasonable belief in age if he is to be acquitted. We think it is right to put the onus on the defendant in these circumstances because the defendant will normally know the child well and therefore the child’s age. For all other offences relating to children, it will be for the prosecution to prove that the defendant did not have a mistaken belief in the child’s age, or if he did, that it was not a reasonable belief. This will not apply where the victim is under 13. In these cases a non-consensual offence will be charged and the defendant's belief in the age of the complainant will not be relevant.
Arranging to meet children with sexual intent will be captured by a new offence of sexual grooming. Though it will not apply purely to the internet, the use by paedophiles of on- line chat rooms to lure children is a trend that worries people.68 Further protection will be afforded by a new civil order to protect children under 16 from inappropriate sexual behaviour:
68 Library standard note SN/HA/1630, Internet Child Pornography
35 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
It is intended to complement the new criminal offence of grooming but will cover a much wider spectrum of behaviour, for example explicit communication with children via email or in chatrooms or hanging around schools or playgrounds.69
To protect people of any age who are vulnerable to “less well understood” risks on account of learning disability or mental disorder, the following new offences are proposed:
Sexual activity with a person who did not, by reason of a learning disability or mental disorder at that time, have the capacity to consent; Obtaining sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception with a person who has a learning disability or mental disorder; and Breach of a relationship of care. These offences aim to balance the need to protect these people from sexual exploitation, yet give maximum recognition to their right to a private and sexual life.
Chapter 5 of the white paper70 covers “offences involving commercial sexual exploitation”, and proposes the introduction of three offences: commercial sexual exploitation of a child; commercial sexual exploitation of adults (of either sex); trafficking people for commercial exploitation. A “stop gap measure” to combat the latter has recently been brought in by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (chapter 41).71
Of the “other offences” covered in chapter 6, the most controversial have been indecent exposure and sexual behaviour in a public place. In providing background to the former, the white paper attempts to address the concerns of naturists:
At present, exposure or “flashing” can be charged under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 or section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847; charges can also be brought under the common law offence of outraging public decency. We will introduce a new gender neutral offence of Indecent exposure relating to the exposure of both male and female genitalia in circumstances where the accused intended to cause or where it was reasonably likely that their behaviour would cause alarm or distress. This is designed to catch those whose behaviour is specifically intended to shock another person and would not be used to criminalise, for example, naturists in regulated environments or streakers at sporting events. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
The sexual behaviour in public offence was meant to complement existing public order offences, while avoiding criminalising “sexual activity that takes place outdoors but in an isolated place where one would reasonably expect not to be observed.”
69 Protecting the Public Cm 5668, November 2002 70 Op cit. Cm 5668 71 sections 145,146
36 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
A. Commentary
An article in the Guardian assembled a variety of responses to publication of the white paper.72 Mary Marsh, chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) was “very pleased the home secretary has focused on the protection of children” but wanted more funding for police to investigate the “massive backlog” of suspected paedophiles.
Derek Green, a sexual crime consultant at Ray Wyre Associates,73 wanted “more emphasis on dealing with children and young people who commit sexual offences, as services and interventions for them are poorly co-ordinated at best and at worst chaotic.” As the Government points out, the new offence of sexual activity between minors does imply acceptance of the differing needs of young offenders.74
Some recent academic work has concluded that the therapeutic needs of young sex abusers are not being appropriately met, adding that the “particular needs and difficulties of young people who have sexually abused are often ignored”.75
John Carr, an internet advisor for NCH action for children76 welcomed the new offence of sexual grooming to protect children befriended by abusers using the internet. Provided sufficient new resources are made available, this would “allow the police to step in a lot earlier in the process and save the child much of the trauma and resulting damage.”
Sue Griffiths, a spokeswoman for the Rape Crisis Federation, offered a welcome in relation to child protection, but criticism on the consent issue:
Rape Crisis welcomes the proposal that sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 13 years will be charged as rape and issues of consent will not be relevant - this effectively brings in the offence of statutory rape. It removes the opportunity for men to claim that six and seven-year olds 'acted provocatively' and 'consented' to sexual intercourse. However the proposals in relation to the rape of adults remain inadequate and will not provide justice for most victims. There is no clear definition of consent and the list of circumstances where it is 'most unlikely to have been present' is too limited. There is considerable danger that the 'reasonableness' of the man's actions will be tested in light of the woman's behaviour, past and present, and that her moral credibility will provide the benchmark against which his actions are assessed."
72 “Child protection agencies and sex crime experts give their responses to the David Blunkett's proposals”, Guardian, 20 November 2002 http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,843999,00.html 73 http://www.sexualcrime.com/index.htm 74 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sexoffences_conresp.pdf 75 Brian Littlechild and Helen Masson, “Young people who have sexually abused: Law and provision”, Childright, July/August 2002 pp 16-18 76 http://www.nchafc.org.uk/default.asp
37 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Pointing to the low conviction rate for rape, Richard Garside for the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders welcomed the “sensible moves to look at the way consent is measured and evidence is gathered.” He wanted loopholes in sex offender registration to be closed. “However, while some offenders clearly present and ongoing risk, do we need all of them on the register."
Harry Fletcher, deputy general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers welcomed the repeal of the specific 'cottaging' laws which have criminalised homosexual behaviour, as he felt this was a waste of prison and probation resources.
IV Sexual Offences Bill
A. General
Published on 29 January 2003, the Sexual Offences Bill, HL Bill 26 2002-03 mostly covers England and Wales. Some provisions, for example in relation to sex offenders, apply throughout the United Kingdom. A Home Office background note released at the time of the Queen’s Speech in November 2002 set the Bill in the context of a wider policy to modernise the criminal justice system – embodied by the Criminal Justice Bill.77 The Sexual Offences Bill would:
• Provide better protection for the most vulnerable, particularly children.
• Provide a clear, coherent and effective set of laws that better respond to today’s types of abuse, for example paedophile use of the Internet.78
• Modernise sex offences so they do not discriminate on grounds of gender and provide protection for all.
• Provide penalties that enable the appropriate punishment of abusers
• Strengthen the Sex Offenders Register by tightening notification requirements and broadening the offences that trigger registration.79
Publication of the Bill on 29 January 2003 was accompanied by a more detailed Home Office press release:
Protection for children and the most vulnerable is at the heart of the Sexual Offences Bill, published today. It is the most radical overhaul of sex offences
77 Library research paper 02/76, The Criminal Justice Bill: Sentencing, 3 December 2002 78 Library standard note SN/HA/1630, Internet Child Pornography 79 Home Office Background Note, Sexual Offences, November 2002
38 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
legislation for 50 years and aims to provide a clear, coherent and effective set of laws that will increase protection, enable the appropriate punishment of abusers and ensure the law is fair and non-discriminatory.
The Bill ensures that existing Victorian laws on sex offences are fit for the 21st century, that they reflect today’s society and attitudes and provide effective protection against today’s crimes.
The Bill also contains new measures to strengthen the monitoring of offenders on the sex offenders register and a range of new offences and harsher sentences for sexual offences against children and vulnerable people…
…The Bill details proposals to:
Strengthen protection for children:
• Children under 13 will not be capable in law of giving consent to any form of sexual activity. Any sexual intercourse with a child under 13 will be charged as rape.
• A range of new offences designed to tackle all inappropriate sexual activity with children, including a new offence of causing a child to engage in sexual activity – which will capture behaviour such as inappropriately persuading children to undress.
• A new grooming offence based on meeting a child with the intention of committing a sex offence, and civil order to apply both to Internet and off-line grooming, which will enable restrictions to be placed on people displaying inappropriate sexual behaviour before an offence is committed.
• New offences with severe penalties against those who sexually exploit children for their own gain. The new offences relating to sexual exploitation of a child will protect children up to the age of 18. It will cover a range of activity including: buying the sexual services of a child, causing or encouraging children into sexual exploitation, facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child and controlling the activities of a child involved in prostitution or pornography.
• Maximum penalties for sexual offences against children and vulnerable people have been raised to reflect the severity of these crimes. Any offence involving penetration against a child under 13 or a person who lacks the capacity to consent, will attract a life sentence.
Strengthen protection for vulnerable people:
• Three new categories of offences to give extra protection to those with a learning disability or mental disorder from sexual abuse. Including
39 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
‘breach of a relationship of care’, to protect those who have the capacity to consent, but are vulnerable to exploitative behaviour.
Strengthen protection for the public:
• A new order to make those known to have been convicted of sex offences overseas register as sex offenders when they come to the UK, whether or not they have committed a crime here.
• All those on the sex offenders’ register to confirm their details in person annually.
• Offenders on the register to provide National Insurance details as a further safeguard against evasion.
• The period within which a sex offender must notify the police of a change of name or address to be reduced from 14 days to three.
• Sex Offender Orders and Sex Offender Restraining Orders to be amalgamated into a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) and made available for anyone convicted of a violent offence where there is evidence they present a risk of causing serious sexual harm.
• A new offence to protect the public from unacceptable sexual acts in public, complementing existing public order offences.
• A new offence to strengthen the law on indecent exposure
• A new offence of voyeurism capturing those who observe others without their knowledge for sexual gratification.
Strengthen offences for sexual violence:
• Clarifying the law on consent in regard to rape.
• A new offence of sexual assault by penetration.
• A new offence of causing sexual acts without consent
• Strengthening drug rape offences.
• Rape extended to include oral penetration.
Strengthen offences to deal with sexual exploitation:
• In addition to the new offences relating to sexual exploitation of children, there will be new offences relating to the sexual exploitation of adults.
40 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• A new offence of trafficking people for sexual exploitation.80
David Blunkett is quoted as describing the current law on sex offences thus: “inadequate, antiquated and discriminatory and does not reflect changes in society, social attitudes and what we now know about patterns of abuse, particularly the extent and nature of child abuse.”81 He also undertook to introduce an amendment to increase existing controls on sex offenders planning to travel abroad to commit sexual offences.
B. Commentary
In a response to the Bill’s publication, Liberty82 also focused on child protection.83 The Director, John Wadham, argued that there was “a real danger is that in the pressure on Government to 'get tough' on very specific offences, we lose sight of the best ways to make all our children safer.” He added:
Provisions like those on grooming risk feeding fear and mistrust in ways that distract from the serious business of child protection - which is about openness, education and talking frankly with our children. As the case of Victoria Climbie and so many other child protection deaths have shown, we need to look out for our neighbours' children - not be scared even to speak to them for fear of being accused of an offence.
Liberty objected to the proposed civil order to combat grooming:
The proposal to issue (civil) sex offenders orders against people who have committed no sexual offence - or offence of any kind - is dangerous in the extreme. Innocent people might find themselves branded as sex offenders by these orders, on the basis of suspicion, malicious allegations or mere tittle-tattle. Any need for action here is already covered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The “sexual activity with children” offence was welcomed as having the potential to close a dangerous loophole – provided the offence is carefully defined. An example of a legal loophole is perhaps best illustrated by a recent case where a man induced some young girls to undress.84 The Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the man's actions did not constitute an offence under English law. In a BBC interview85 Alan Levy QC made
80 Home Office press release 023/2003, Publication of the Sexual Offences Bill – protection for children and the most vulnerable, 29 January 2003 81 ibid. 82 http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ 83 Liberty press release, Sexual Offences Bill: Liberty Response, 29 January 2003 84 "Blunkett may close sex case loophole", BBC News Online, 16 January 2002 "Asking girls to undress no offence, says CPS", Daily Telegraph, 16 January 2002 85 "Blunkett may close sex case loophole", BBC News Online, 16 January 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1761000/1761215.stm
41 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 brief mention of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the Protection of Children Act 1978, and common law.
In short, a lack of physical contact lay behind the problem with bringing a prosecution. This apparently made a charge of gross indecency with a child, or any other known offence, impractical. However, there is no statutory definition of "gross indecency" and the following commentary in Halsbury's Statutes is interesting, even though it refers to gross indecency between males:
… it was held in R v Hunt [1950] 2 All ER 291, 114 JP 382, that in order to constitute the offence of gross indecency between male persons actual physical contact is not essential; it is sufficient if the persons charged have placed themselves in such a position that a grossly indecent exhibition is going on between them. Inactivity can amount to an act of gross indecency if it amounts to an invitation to the child to continue doing the act (R v Speck [1977] 2 All ER 859, (1977) 121 Sol Jo 221, CA).
The above commentary is in the context of section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, subsection (1) of which now reads (subsequent amendments are highlighted by square brackets):
(1) Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of [sixteen], or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [ten years], or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding [the prescribed sum], or to both.
The age of the child was raised from 14 to 16 by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, s 39.
Mr Levy suggested the introduction of an offence along the lines of obtaining sexual satisfaction by deception involving a child. This would avoid a difficulty86 suggested by a Daily Telegraph leader87 in relation to relatives and family friends being involved in bathing children under their protection.
Returning to Liberty’s response to the Bill: an honest belief in consent defence in rape cases could, as the Bill suggests, justifiably be modified to require a “reasonable, honest belief”.
86 Legal difficulties in dealing with acts of gross indecency towards children are briefly covered in Cathy Cobley’s book, Sex Offenders: Law, Policy and Practice (2000) p 18 87 "Nowt so queer as folk", Daily Telegraph, 16 January 2002
42 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Liberty had no problems with a requirement that sex offenders re-register annually, though the register ought to focus on those posing a real danger. Judges could make an order at the time of sentencing to require sex offender registration; and the register ought to be cleared of men involved in consensual gay sex. Some remain on the register for sexual activity with consenting males below 18 (then the age of homosexual consent) but above the age of 16 (the age of homosexual consent since January 2001). Liberty did welcome the “long overdue” equality in the laws between homosexual and heterosexual sex.
Plans to target people who exploit child prostitutes and those incapable (through mental disability for example) of consent were also welcomed.
The NSPCC welcomed the tougher sentences and clearer offences in the Bill, while calling for more police funding to combat sex offenders.88 The NSPCC also called upon the Government to strike a balance in relation to children and young people who display sexual harmful behaviour and the proposed “sexual activity between minors” offence.
Further funding was needed for a national strategy of treatment provision for children and young people who display sexually harmful behaviour.
NSPCC Director and Chief Executive, Mary Marsh added:
Children and young people who behave in a sexually harmful way do not generally understand their actions in the same way that an adult sexual offender understands their actions and a significant proportion of these children have suffered or are suffering abuse of some kind. Children involved in sexual relations should be treated as victims not offenders who are in need of support, advice and treatment.
Sacha Deshmukh, Director of Parliamentary Affairs for Stonewall89 welcomed the Bill which had “been a long time coming”. He added:
The publication of the Bill is an important step forward, but it is very wrong to think that the battle over sex offences is already won. There are many members of the House of Lords who are going to put up a tough fight to defend the criminalisation of gay men…
…Getting rid of these laws is only half the battle ahead. These reforms will only change the law in England and Wales, not Scotland or Northern Ireland. We also want to see fair treatment for the thousands of gay men who have to live with a
88 NSPCC press release, NSPCC Calls for More Funding for Sex Offender Crackdown, 29 January 2003 89 http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/
43 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
sex offence record, for committing acts that both government and society now think should never have been crimes.90
Among the specific concerns of the Christian Institute91 has been the use of public toilets for homosexual activity. Four months after the Bill was published, the Institute called for a ban on all sexual activity – whether homosexual or heterosexual – in public toilets. Deputy Director Simon Calvert said:
The plan to repeal gross indecency and put nothing in its place is astonishing. It will effectively legalise sex in public toilets. Parents will fear sending their children into such places. Many will become no-go areas for families. Weak laws such as ‘outraging public decency’ are no substitute for a clear and specific criminal offence which addresses this well-known public nuisance.92
The Bill as amended in the House of Lords, and now before the Commons, is the Sexual Offences Bill [HL], Bill 128 2002-03. A discussion of the clauses, against a background of debates and amendments in the Lords is given in library Research Paper 03/62.
V Statistics
A. Introduction
Sexual offences accounted for less than 1% of all crimes recorded by the police in 2001/02. The other violent crime groups, Violence against the Person and Robbery, accounted for 12% and 2% respectively.
It is not possible to use figures from official publications, such as Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, to accurately calculate flows through the criminal justice system. A crime that was recorded by the police in 1999, began proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court in 2000 and had a verdict passed in the Crown Court in 2001 would show up in three separate publications for three different years. This problem is highlighted in Table 1 where there were more offenders found guilty of ‘Incest’ in 2000 than had started Magistrates’ Court proceedings.
We can not be precise about the flows through the system, but we can show the orders of magnitude for the larger offence groups. Although there were almost 8,000 ‘Rape of a female’ recorded in 2000/01, fewer than 2,000 proceedings began in a Magistrates’ Court in 2000 and only 550 offenders were found guilty. Similarly there were over 20,000 ‘Indecent assault on a female’ crimes recorded, with less than 4,000 proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court and over 2,000 found guilty.
90 Stonewall press release, Sexual Offences bill repealing Victorian sex laws published, 29 January 2003 91 http://www.christian.org.uk/home.htm 92 Christian Institute news release, Government ‘legalises’ sex in public toilets, 31 May 2003
44 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Data is only regularly published on the major sexual offence groups and not for individual offences that they may contain. Separate statistics for the new offences that the Bill creates, such as those classified as ‘Other offences’ are not generally published.
Some of the offences are brand new, such as ‘Voyeurism’, so statistics would therefore not be available. Some of the offences are currently included under various other offences. For example Court proceedings for ‘Sexual activity in a public lavatory’, although not a specific offence at the present time, may be tried as a ‘Buggery’ or ‘Indecency between males’. However the data does not specify where such an offence occurred.
Some statistics on the offences created by the Bill are available93. The Bill aims to make ‘Intercourse with an animal’ a separate offence from ‘Buggery’. In 2001 the single person proceeded against in the Magistrates’ Court was found guilty of ‘Buggery or attempted buggery with an animal’.
A section of the Bill creates ‘Offences against persons with a mental disorder or learning disability’. In 2001 there were five proceedings for a ‘Man having sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective’, all of whom were found guilty.
‘Exploitation of prostitution’ is another section of the Bill. In 2001 24 proceedings were started for offences of a ‘Man living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute’, all but one of these men were found guilty. 10 proceedings were carried out for a ‘Woman, exercising control over prostitute’, 8 of these ended in a guilty verdict.
B. Offences recorded by the police, England and Wales
At the end of the 19th century there were approximately 1,700 sexual offences recorded by the police. This increased slowly throughout the first half of the 20th century and after WWII almost 10,000 sexual offences a year were being recorded. By the end of the 1950s this figure had doubled to 20,000 and recorded offences remained around this level during the 1960s, 1970s and into the early 1980s. During the 1980s recorded offences increased by a further 50% and at the start of the 1990s there were 30,000 offences a year in England and Wales. Since 1995 recorded sexual offences have risen sharply. Although this may be partly due to the addition of extra sexual offences in more recent years it does not account for the entire increase, underpinning this rise is an increase in offending and reporting of the crimes.
Table 2 shows the number of sexual offences recorded for each offence since 1898. Chart A shows the trend in the numbers of selected sexual offences recorded over the past 100
93 With thanks to the Sexual Offences Bill Team, Home Office
45 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 years. To enable a direct comparison in the growth of these offences the series has been indexed (1898 = 100).
Chart A - Indexed trends in recored sexual offences 1898-2001/02
1898 = 100
4,500
4,000 Rape
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 Indecent assaults on females
1,500
1,000 Total Sexual Offences
500 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with girl under 13
0 1898 1903 1908 1913 1918 1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1997/8
There has been very little change in the number of offences of ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13’ when compared to the 1898 figure. The number of such offences recorded in the late 1990s was the lowest they had been since the 1950s. The trend in indecent assault on females has mirrored the overall sexual offences trend, although this should not be surprising as ‘indecent assaults’ account for approximately half of all sexual offences. What is most apparent from this chart is the massive increase in recorded rape offences relative to other offences since the early 1980s.
Table 3 shows the number of sexual offences recorded by the police in each year since 1991 for each offence. Two figures are provided for 1998/99 as the Home Office changed the counting rules for recorded crime in April 1998.94 These new rules count one crime per victim. Although violent crime figures are not affected too much by this rule change it is something that readers should bear in mind.
The period for which data are collected has also changed. Up to and including 1997, recorded crime statistics were counted by calendar year, since April 1997 they have been counted by financial year.
94 Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/00 Recorded Crime Statistics England and Wales, April 1999 to March 2000 18 July 2000
46 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
In 2001/02 more than half the sexual offences recorded were ‘Indecent assault on a female’. A further quarter were ‘Rape of a female’, which have more than doubled over the past decade and increased by 14% over the latest year. The next largest was ‘Indecent assault on a male’ where 3,600 offences have been recorded in each of the past four years.
Since the introduction of the new counting rules sexual offences recorded by the police have increased by an average of 5% a year. ‘Indecent assault on a female’ and ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16’ offences have increased at a similar rate. ‘Soliciting or importuning by a man’ has increased on average by 14% a year, ‘Rape of a male’ by over 13% each year, ‘Indecency with a child’ by 9% and ‘Rape of a female’ by 8%. Since 1998/99 ‘Indecency between males’ has fallen by almost a quarter each year, ‘Bigamy’ by 17% and ‘Buggery’ by 14%.
C. Other measures of crime
Another method of measuring crime is through the British Crime Survey (BCS). This computerised self-completion survey, of 33,000 adults living in private households, ‘gives a more complete estimate of crime in England and Wales since it covers both unreported and unrecorded crime’95. This is particularly relevant as sexual offences are significantly under-reported to the authorities.
Findings from the BCS96 suggest that more than 750,000 females aged 16 to 59 in England and Wales had been the victim of rape once or more since the age of 16. The BCS suggests that 61,000 women in this age range had been raped in the previous year far in excess of the 9,000 recorded by the police.
The BCS report finds that when considering those at risk of a sexual assault age is the biggest factor. Those aged 16 to 19 the most likely to say they had been victimised, while women aged 20 to 24 have almost as high a risk of suffering some form of sexual attack. With specific regard to rape young women aged 16-19 were four times as likely to have reported being a victim in the last year as women from any other group.
Women who were married or cohabiting are the least likely to report being sexually victimised according to the BCS. For any type of sexual victimisation single women were at the most risk, while divorcees were at the highest risk of rape, many of these were victimised by a partner or ex-partner.
The BCS suggests that women are most often sexually assaulted by men they know. Chart 2 shows the relationship between rape victim and attacker. Nearly half the rapes
95 Crime in England and Wales 2001/02, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02, July 2002 96 Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem, Home Office Research Study 237
47 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61 reported to the BCS were committed by a current partner with only 8% committed by a stranger.
Chart 2 - Relationship between women and their rape attacker
Strangers , 8%
Other intimates, 10%
Current partners, 45% Dates, 11%
Ex-partners, 11%
Acquaintances, 16%
Chart 3 provides similar information for non-rape sexual offences. The majority of these offences were perpetrated by acquaintances (28%) and strangers (23%). Overall, women are more likely to be victimised by a partner rather than any other attacker.
Chart 3 - Relationship between women and their sexual attacker (Non rape offences)
Current partners, 18% Strangers , 23%
Other intimates, 11%
Acquaintances, 28%
Dates, 12%
Ex-partners, 8%
48 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Women are more likely to be victimised in their own home than in any other location. The BCS reports that over half (55%) of rape victims were raped in their own home while a fifth were raped in the attacker’s home. Sexual assaults are three times more likely to occur in a public place than are rapes.
D. Court proceedings
Table 4 provides information on the number of sexual offence proceedings in a Magistrates’ Court by major offence group. Information is given for each available year since 1991. The total number of sexual offence proceedings has fallen by 1,700 since 1991, although there have been increases in four of the ten years. This is in spite of the fact that recorded offences have increased by more than a third over the same period.
There were increases in the number of court proceedings in three of the sexual offence groups (‘Rape of a female’; ‘Indecent assault on a female’ and ‘Indecency with a child’). Each of these offences has seen a rise in the number recorded by the police. Although there has been an increase in the number of ‘Indecent assault on a male’ crimes recorded there has been a fall in the number of court proceedings over this period.
In 1991 court proceedings for ‘Indecent assault on a female’ accounted for 41% and ‘Rape of a female’ for 19% of all sexual offence proceedings. By 2000 this figure had increased to over 50% for ‘Indecent assault on a female’ and 27% for ‘Rape of a female’. Almost one in ten sexual offence proceedings in 1990 were for ‘Indecent assault on a male’, this had fallen to less than 1% in 2000.
E. Numbers found guilty or cautioned
The number of offenders cautioned or found guilty in any court for a sexual offence fell by 40% between 1991 and 2000 (Table 5). The only offence where more offenders were cautioned or found guilty in 2000 than 1991 was for ‘Rape of a female’, although the increase was only slight.
In 2000 over half of all offenders cautioned or found guilty for sexual offences had committed an ‘Indecent assault on a female’. A further 11% of offenders were cautioned or found guilty of ‘Rape of a female’, 10% had committed an ‘Indecent assault on a male’ and 9% ‘Unlawful intercourse with a girl aged under 16’.
Tables 6a-c provide a breakdown of those offenders cautioned or found guilty in a court by age group. Information is split into those aged 10 and 11, 12 to 14, 15 to 17, 18 to 20 and those older than 21. A summary of the key data is provided below.
• Almost one fifth of offenders cautioned or found guilty for a sexual offence in 2000 were aged under 18. • Almost 40% of all cautions for sexual offences were issued to offenders aged under 18. Two thirds of those found guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and almost 90% of those found guilty in the Crown Court were aged over 21.
49 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• Over 40% of offenders cautioned or found guilty for ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13’ were themselves aged under 18, including 11% aged 14 or younger. Nearly half of those offenders cautioned or found guilty for ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16’ were aged under 21. • 85% of offenders cautioned or found guilty of ‘Rape of a female’ were aged 21 or older. A third of those offenders cautioned or found guilty for ‘Rape of a male’ were aged under 18. • 93% of offenders cautioned or found guilty of ‘Buggery’ offences were aged 21 or older.
According to a Home Office report97 there were over 25,000 arrests in England and Wales for sexual offences during 2001/02. Almost 81% of those arrested were ‘White’, less than 10% were ‘Black’ and less than 7% were ‘Asian’. This compares to proportions of the 1.2m arrested for any offences of 85% (White), less than 9% (Black) and 5% (Asian).
The same report suggested that of the 1,200 cautions issued for sexual offences in England and Wales in 2001/02, 86% were issued to ‘White’ offenders and 5% to each of the ‘Black’ and ‘Asian’ groups. These proportions were very similar to the caution figures for total offences.
F. Custody and reconviction
In 2000 almost two-thirds of offenders found guilty of a sexual offence in any court were sentenced to immediate custody. The custody rate has been increasing steadily over the past decade (Table 7). This rate was higher in 2000 than 1991 for all the sexual offences except ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13’ which has seen a fall in the custody rate over this period.
Offenders convicted of a rape offence were the most likely to be sentenced to immediate custody in 2000, with over 90% receiving an immediate custodial sentence. This has been the case in each year since 1991. Over 80% of those found guilty of ‘Buggery’ in 2000 were sentenced to immediate custody.
Over half of the offenders sentenced to immediate custody for a sexual offence in 2000 had committed ‘Indecent assault on a female’.
Table 8 shows the proportion of those offenders found guilty at the Crown Court in 2001 that pleaded guilty. The table covers all sexual offences where 30 or more persons were sentenced, during the year. Also shown is the difference between those who plead guilty and not guilty in terms of custody rates and sentence length.
97 Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2001 Home Office
50 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
For each of the offences shown those who plead guilty will, on average, receive a shorter sentence than those who plead not guilty. The average sexual offence sentence length for an offender who pleaded guilty is less than three years, while an offender who pleaded not guilty will receive an average sentence of over four years. Those who plead not guilty are also more likely to receive a custodial sentence than those who plead guilty.
Sentence lengths were highest for rape and ‘Buggery’ offences. With the sentence lengths for all other sexual offences shown being below the all sexual offences average, by at least six months for those pleading guilty and a year for those pleading not guilty.
Reconviction is generally used as a measure of reoffending and this ratio varies according to offence. Moreover, first offenders and offenders subject to more intense supervision are more likely to be caught reoffending. Nevertheless, reconviction rates remain the only available regularly published measure.
59% of all prisoners discharged in 1998 were reconvicted for an offence within two years of discharge. Reconviction rates vary by type of offence of first conviction with the sexual offence rate the lowest amongst offence groups (18%). However among those convicted sexual offenders who were reconvicted 16% were reconvicted for another sexual offence. This represents 3% of all sex offenders discharged from custody in 1998. Prisoners not originally convicted of sexual offences were very unlikely to be reconvicted for a sexual offence.
A Home Office study98 found that when a broader outcome than reconviction is measured, a higher level of offence-related behaviour by sexual offenders is revealed. Such an outcome may be sexual reoffending or recidivism. Reoffending is the perpetration of another illegal sexual act whether caught or not. Recidivism relates to behaviour that may or may not be illegal, but has a clear sexual motivation, for example a convicted child sexual offender loitering around a children’s playground.
The study reported that the sexual recidivism rate was 5.3 times greater than the reconviction rate calculated and that the sexual reoffending rate was at least twice as high as this previously reported rate.
98 Sexual offenders – measuring reconviction, reoffending and recidivism, Home Office Findings 183, 2003
51 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 1 Criminal justice statistics for a variety of violent offences, 2000 Recorded crimes Proceedings in Total for trial in Total Found 2000/01 Cautions Magistrates' Court Crown Court Guilty Immediate custody
Buggery 401 13 162 158 106 87 82% Indecent assault on a male 3,530 100 551 502 410 231 56% Gross indecency between males 167 59 65 7 44 10 23% Rape of a female 7,929 37 1,930 1,338 557 535 96% Rape of a male 664 4 116 84 41 38 93% Indecent assault on a female 20,301 701 3,803 2,686 2,223 1,258 57% Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 155 20 40 54 53 27 51% Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 1,237 235 179 133 214 97 45% Incest 80 10 34 42 40 25 63% Procuration 129 22 50 38 36 15 42% Abduction 262 1 15 3 5 3 60% Bigamy 80 19 17 5 12 4 33% Soliciting or importuning by a man3 1,028 33 18 3 9 1 11% Abuse of position of trust4 12 Gross indecency with a child 1,336 47 283 228 193 100 52% TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 37,311 1,301 7,263 5,281 3,963 2,431 61% Homicide 850 - 754 627 501 472 94% Attempted murder 708 1 403 122 65 55 85% Threat or conspiracy to murder 14,064 255 3,467 444 428 187 44% TOTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON 600,909 19,876 75,502 18,435 35,270 11,414 32% TOTAL ROBBERY 95,154 621 12,142 6,034 5,891 4,341 74%
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
52 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 2 Sexual offences recored by the police 1898 - 2001/02
Buggery Indecent Indecency Rape - Rape- Rape Indecent Unlawful sexual Unlawful sexual Householder Incest Procuration Abduction Bigamy 4 Soliciting Abuse of Gross Total Sexual assaults on between Female Male 3 assaults intercourse with intercourse with permitting defilement or importuning position of indecency offences Year males males on females girl under 13 girl under 16 of girls 1 by a man trust 5 with a child 2 (16) (17) (18) (19A) (19B) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (73) (74)
1898 72 49 102 236 798 155 164 2 5 18 122 1,723 1899 52 54 92 256 767 153 174 1 8 17 115 1,689 1900 49 63 77 231 727 149 131 9 2 29 115 1,582 1901 75 59 110 236 727 143 93 - 10 22 121 1,596 1902 59 51 93 216 642 141 159 1 5 19 106 1,492 1903 60 51 126 190 692 153 129 2 10 24 138 1,575 1904 56 40 112 213 686 123 140 3 17 14 152 1,556 1905 60 46 118 172 732 153 161 2 4 17 113 1,578 1906 56 63 127 203 788 150 194 3 10 16 141 1,751 1907 56 69 148 185 826 149 178 - 12 16 113 1,752 1908 56 65 137 202 767 185 181 2 8 17 129 1,749 1909 66 61 127 172 826 142 190 24 15 13 153 1,789 1910 66 96 139 156 976 129 178 54 22 15 131 1,962 1911 45 69 104 146 1,115 120 197 74 21 20 161 2,072 1912 75 111 132 175 1,343 148 235 62 23 31 161 2,496 1913 57 145 157 177 1,385 143 271 64 96 40 171 2,706 1914 61 143 133 154 1,320 103 235 103 43 22 172 2,489 1915 69 112 141 124 1,028 101 152 66 16 20 254 2,083 1916 51 116 149 98 920 72 152 53 23 10 339 1,983 1917 33 94 86 74 663 60 135 38 12 8 500 1,703 1918 35 82 79 78 723 50 102 58 5 9 687 1,908 1919 47 92 138 121 1,061 68 150 70 7 24 926 2,704 1920 71 192 156 130 1,372 80 155 95 8 14 797 3,070 1921 43 187 168 125 1,396 77 152 76 6 14 597 2,841 1922 59 221 170 118 1,536 81 203 98 11 15 525 3,037 1923 68 211 201 110 1,597 59 210 88 9 12 465 3,030 1924 70 265 185 116 1,673 72 200 89 7 27 456 3,160 1925 67 258 166 94 1,668 98 224 121 8 16 406 3,126 1926 91 354 155 125 1,836 86 223 92 6 22 438 3,428 1927 67 345 197 113 1,928 91 279 104 13 19 377 3,533 1928 58 336 141 107 1,934 73 275 103 8 12 350 3,397 1929 102 364 191 89 1,853 76 346 84 11 20 338 3,474 1930 47 398 203 89 1,871 58 402 76 15 13 374 3,546 1931 73 371 178 90 1,668 78 383 97 15 15 323 3,291 1932 46 487 258 72 1,590 62 285 93 27 12 338 3,270 1933 82 554 210 75 1,766 78 301 110 16 28 300 3,520 1934 64 581 192 84 2,071 97 432 79 33 25 312 3,970 1935 78 535 227 104 1,964 71 417 88 27 23 301 3,835 1936 125 690 352 99 2,200 67 420 92 16 16 281 4,358 1937 102 703 316 108 2,382 92 501 93 14 18 317 4,646 1938 134 822 320 99 2,593 80 477 74 24 22 373 5,018 1939 - 1940 97 808 251 125 2,381 65 433 75 12 13 366 4,626 1941 177 757 390 169 2,589 76 542 83 18 12 795 5,608 1942 208 998 582 200 2,745 117 651 98 46 14 1,107 6,766 1943 245 1,208 623 257 3,302 108 700 125 25 12 1,179 7,784 1944 277 1,186 449 416 3,639 109 767 122 52 16 1,046 8,079 1945 223 1,318 459 377 3,904 114 820 141 41 14 1,135 8,546 1946 247 1,523 561 251 4,659 109 684 127 26 15 1,127 9,329 1947 255 1,839 690 240 5,052 115 675 152 29 24 928 9,999 1948 258 2,216 660 252 5,659 100 784 138 31 16 808 10,922 1949 562 2,409 852 233 6,191 116 838 161 16 19 618 12,015 1950 534 2,893 989 314 6,678 135 866 185 42 21 528 13,185 1951 452 3,272 1,152 335 7,287 193 1,199 209 32 24 478 14,633 1952 670 3,087 1,686 260 7,226 199 1,127 214 36 17 445 14,967 1953 700 3,305 1,675 295 7,917 231 1,338 326 28 27 475 16,317 1954 1,043 3,280 2,034 294 7,184 210 1,340 251 36 33 391 16,096 1955 766 3,556 2,322 340 7,619 195 1,491 308 37 47 397 17,078
53 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 2 (cont) Sexual offences recored by the police 1898 - 2001/02
Buggery Indecent Indecency Rape - Rape- Rape Indecent Unlawful sexual Unlawful sexual Householder Incest Procuration Abduction Bigamy 4 Soliciting Abuse of Gross Total Sexual assaults on between Female Male 3 assaults intercourse with intercourse with permitting defilement or importuning position of indecency offences males males on females girl under 13 girl under 16 of girls 1 by a man trust 5 with a child 2 (16) (17) (18) (19A) (19B) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (73) (74)
1956 907 3,355 1,934 329 8,141 172 1,578 285 27 35 340 17,103 1957 803 3,605 1,919 408 8,985 265 1,930 312 21 49 338 18,635 1958 625 2,969 1,877 391 8,322 257 2,586 267 42 39 316 17,691 1959 706 3,420 1,606 512 9,624 285 3,152 291 69 44 315 20,024 1960 641 3,095 1,504 515 9,663 232 3,608 286 48 60 285 19,937 1961 728 3,224 1,653 503 9,386 229 3,923 335 66 71 286 20,404 1962 560 3,037 1,269 473 9,530 224 4,256 309 48 53 251 20,010 1963 660 3,268 1,507 422 9,641 190 4,178 291 55 49 257 20,518 1964 675 3,095 1,142 517 9,931 225 3,750 249 42 43 234 19,903 1965 584 2,961 844 618 10,280 244 3,971 328 38 66 221 20,155 1966 575 3,137 947 644 10,938 301 4,156 237 68 64 241 21,308 1967 624 3,563 840 702 11,369 295 4,517 260 29 56 246 22,501 1968 552 3,286 959 829 11,696 281 5,083 333 124 60 188 23,391 1969 592 3,250 820 869 12,181 243 4,915 275 125 58 198 23,526 1970 553 3,354 874 884 12,609 243 4,973 277 121 67 208 24,163 1971 593 2,887 1,029 784 12,400 222 5,060 307 94 65 180 23,621 1972 532 2,985 1,069 893 11,977 256 5,129 323 70 63 208 23,505 1973 667 3,052 1,567 998 13,294 323 5,180 288 87 97 183 25,736 1974 587 3,096 1,796 1,052 12,417 304 4,746 337 67 97 199 24,698 1975 720 2,885 1,699 1,040 11,809 327 4,533 349 126 88 155 23,731 1976 662 2,689 1,569 1,094 10,901 295 4,313 338 84 68 190 22,203 1977 594 2,633 1,465 1,015 11,048 243 3,681 295 93 94 152 21,313 1978 697 2,455 1,706 1,243 11,814 214 3,491 329 143 123 152 22,367 1979 632 2,385 1,333 1,170 11,834 248 3,558 334 107 91 151 21,843 1980 657 2,288 1,421 1,225 11,498 254 3,109 312 104 95 144 21,107 1981 626 2,333 1,229 1,068 10,634 220 2,734 241 109 98 132 19,424 1982 516 2,082 1,104 1,336 11,156 223 2,791 230 109 86 96 19,729 1983 588 2,178 1,362 1,334 10,833 254 2,773 243 161 81 92 511 20,410 1984 602 2,321 1,080 1,433 10,837 270 2,622 290 102 99 94 472 20,222 1985 633 2,307 857 1,842 11,410 299 2,733 277 229 160 76 633 21,456 1986 794 2,308 990 2,288 11,839 362 2,555 444 170 192 76 666 22,684 1987 929 2,425 1,127 2,471 13,340 312 2,699 511 175 268 66 831 25,154 1988 951 2,512 1,306 2,855 14,112 283 2,552 516 201 277 93 871 26,529 1989 1,138 2,878 2,022 3,305 15,376 300 2,471 471 113 298 82 1,279 29,733 1990 1,120 3,043 1,159 3,391 15,783 304 2,140 435 176 356 74 1,063 29,044 1991 1,127 3,070 965 4,045 15,792 315 1,949 389 138 411 75 1,147 29,423 1992 1,255 3,119 892 4,142 16,235 253 1,563 344 130 354 83 1,158 29,528 1993 1,279 3,340 671 4,589 17,350 268 1,443 484 136 354 90 1,280 31,284 1994 1,258 3,205 683 5,032 17,579 275 1,446 316 196 388 81 1,512 31,971 1995 818 3,150 727 4,986 150 16,876 178 1,260 185 207 364 86 1,287 30,274 1996 728 3,130 553 5,759 231 17,643 171 1,261 157 132 313 98 1,215 31,391 1997 645 3,503 520 6,281 347 18,674 148 1,112 183 131 277 75 1,269 33,165 1997/8 657 3,885 483 6,523 375 18,979 156 1,084 189 142 258 106 1,314 34,151 1998/9(old rules) 567 3,672 353 7,139 502 19,463 153 1,133 139 155 242 126 1,271 34,915 1998/9(new rules) 566 3,683 354 7,132 504 19,524 153 1,135 139 215 240 129 1,107 1,293 36,174 1999/00 437 3,614 286 7,809 600 20,664 181 1,270 121 138 251 83 973 1,365 37,792 2000/01 401 3,530 167 7,929 664 20,301 155 1,237 80 129 262 80 1,028 12 1,336 37,311 2001/02 354 3,613 163 9,008 735 21,765 170 1,336 93 130 263 74 1,648 408 1,665 41,425
Notes 1 Householder permitting defilement of girls (23) was ceased to be recorded in 1909 2 In 1983 Gross indecency with a child (74) became a notifiable offence 3 In 1995 Rape of male (19B)became notifiable 4 From April 1998 Bigamy (26) became a notifiable offence 5 "Abuse of position of trust" (73) became notifiable from 1.1.01 Source: Home Office
54 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 3 Sexual offences recorded by the police 1991 to 2001/02
Numbers and percentage changes Recorded crime Offence 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1997/881 1998/991 1998/992 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 % change between 2000/01 and 2001/02
Buggery 1,127 1,255 1,279 1,258 818 728 645 657 567 566 437 401 354 -12 Indecent assault on a male 3,070 3,119 3,340 3,205 3,150 3,130 3,503 3,885 3,672 3,683 3,614 3,530 3,613 2 Gross indecency between males 965 892 671 683 727 553 520 483 353 354 286 167 163 -2 Rape of a female 4,045 4,142 4,589 5,032 4,986 5,759 6,281 6,523 7,139 7,132 7,809 7,929 9,008 14 Rape of a male ...... 150 231 347 375 502 504 600 664 735 11 Indecent assault on a female 15,792 16,235 17,350 17,579 16,876 17,643 18,674 18,979 19,463 19,524 20,664 20,301 21,765 7 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 315 253 268 275 178 171 148 156 153 153 181 155 170 10 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 1,949 1,563 1,443 1,446 1,260 1,261 1,112 1,084 1,133 1,135 1,270 1,237 1,336 8 Incest 389 344 484 316 185 157 183 189 139 139 121 80 93 16 Procuration 138 130 136 196 207 132 131 142 155 215 138 129 130 1 Abduction 411 354 354 388 364 313 277 258 242 240 251 262 263 - Bigamy 75 83 90 81 86 98 75 106 126 129 83 80 74 -8 Soliciting or importuning by a man3 ...... 1,107 973 1,028 1,648 60 Abuse of position of trust4 ...... 12 408 .. Gross indecency with a child 1,147 1,158 1,280 1,512 1,287 1,215 1,269 1,314 1,271 1,293 1,365 1,336 1,665 25
TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 29,423 29,528 31,284 31,971 30,274 31,391 33,165 34,151 34,915 36,174 37,792 37,311 41,425 11
1. The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998. 2. The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998. 3. These offences were added to the series from 1 April 1998. 4. These offences were added to the series from 1 January 2001. 5. Numbers of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in reporting and recording. For further information see chapter 2 in 'Crime in England and Wales 2001/02'.
Crime in England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/07
55 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 4 Sexual offence proceedings in a Magistrates' Courts, England and Wales 1991 to 2000
Numbers and percentage changes Offence 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Buggery 402 426 371 410 245 140 177 186 200 162 Indecent assault on a male 734 656 621 640 609 483 542 625 626 551 Indecency between males 815 776 540 608 494 283 318 249 125 65 Rape of a female 1,711 1,648 1,704 1,782 1,641 1,696 1,880 2,088 2,054 1,930 Rape of a male ...... 61 81 97 115 116 Indecent assault on a female 3,659 3,627 3,639 3,794 3,557 3,265 3,430 3,772 4,001 3,803 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 155 112 97 88 77 40 40 40 32 40 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 254 254 189 202 195 164 153 171 169 179 Incest 118 83 74 62 40 41 33 32 29 34 Procuration 369 204 134 151 106 69 96 74 63 50 Abduction 44 208 60 50 20 15 10 13 13 15 Bigamy 15 16 23 25 20 18 22 30 40 17 Soliciting or importuning by a man3 400 223 208 124 111 103 74 61 20 18 Abuse of position of trust4 ...... Indecency with a child 239 261 257 216 171 158 172 325 330 283
TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 8,915 8,494 7,917 8,152 7,286 6,536 7,028 7,763 7,817 7,263
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
56 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 5 Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable sexual offences.
Numbers Offence 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Buggery 302 277 245 250 191 132 137 163 122 119 Indecent assault on a male 710 720 667 635 668 631 608 565 606 510 Gross indecency between males 954 1,055 862 917 757 523 545 382 177 103 Rape of a female 559 529 482 460 578 573 599 656 631 594 Rape of a male ...... 9 24 45 46 61 45 Indecent assault on a female 3,791 3,695 3,471 3,390 3,321 3,344 3,401 3,246 3,189 2,924 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 168 148 143 109 122 94 60 78 76 73 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 1,073 924 723 705 603 576 472 511 436 449 Incest 157 127 127 96 62 62 64 72 42 50 Procuration 305 186 180 234 157 106 109 94 66 58 Abduction 20 22 43 20 14 8 4 8 4 6 Bigamy 33 44 42 47 39 36 30 38 47 31 Soliciting or importuning by a man3 471 333 330 343 198 128 136 170 44 42 Gross indecency with a child 300 326 304 274 213 216 231 264 272 240
TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 8,843 8,386 7,619 7,480 6,932 6,453 6,441 6,293 5,773 5,244
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
57 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 6a Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable sexual offences against males, by age group Aged 10 & Aged 12 & Aged 15 & Aged 10 & Aged 18 & Aged 21 & under 12 under 15 under 18 under 18 under 21 over Total
Buggery Cautions 0 0% 2 15% 2 15% 4 31% 0 0% 9 69% 13 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 4 80% 5 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 2 2% 1 1% 98 97% 101 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 3 3% 4 3% 7 6% 1 1% 111 93% 119 100%
Indecent Assault on a Male Cautions 3 3% 26 26% 16 16% 45 45% 5 5% 50 50% 100 100% Guilty MC 1 1% 6 5% 19 17% 26 23% 3 3% 86 75% 115 100% Guilty CC 2 1% 8 3% 15 5% 25 8% 13 4% 257 87% 295 100% All found guilty or cautioned 6 1% 40 8% 50 10% 96 19% 21 4% 393 77% 510 100%
Indecency between Males Cautions 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 57 97% 59 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 2 5% 2 5% 1 3% 35 92% 38 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 100% 6 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 2 2% 3 3% 98 95% 103 100%
Rape of a Male Cautions 0 0% 3 75% 1 25% 4 100% 0 0% 0 0% 4 100% Guilty MC 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Guilty CC 0 0% 3 7% 8 20% 11 27% 3 7% 27 66% 41 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 6 13% 9 20% 15 33% 3 7% 27 60% 45 100%
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
58 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 6b Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable sexual offences against females or children, by age group Aged 10 & Aged 12 & Aged 15 & Aged 10 & Aged 18 & Aged 21 & under 12 under 15 under 18 under 18 under 21 over Total Rape of a Female Cautions 0 0% 6 16% 11 30% 17 46% 2 5% 18 49% 37 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 4 80% 4 80% 0 0% 1 20% 5 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 3 1% 27 5% 30 5% 36 7% 486 88% 552 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 9 2% 42 7% 51 9% 38 6% 505 85% 594 100%
Indecent Assault on a Female Cautions 22 3% 171 24% 107 15% 300 43% 49 7% 352 50% 701 100% Guilty MC 1 0% 63 8% 133 17% 197 25% 56 7% 537 68% 790 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 27 2% 82 6% 109 8% 75 5% 1,249 87% 1,433 100% All found guilty or cautioned 23 1% 261 9% 322 11% 606 21% 180 6% 2,138 73% 2,924 100%
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Girl under 13 Cautions 0 0% 6 30% 9 45% 15 75% 3 15% 2 10% 20 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 8 100% 8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 8 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 2 4% 5 11% 7 16% 12 27% 26 58% 45 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 8 11% 22 30% 30 41% 15 21% 28 38% 73 100%
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Girl under 16 Cautions 0 0% 8 3% 72 31% 80 34% 75 32% 80 34% 235 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 4 4% 14 15% 18 19% 18 19% 59 62% 95 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 1 1% 8 7% 9 8% 20 17% 90 76% 119 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 13 3% 94 21% 107 24% 113 25% 229 51% 449 100%
Gross Indecency with Children Cautions 4 9% 6 13% 6 13% 16 34% 4 9% 27 57% 47 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 3 5% 7 12% 10 17% 4 7% 44 76% 58 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% 4 3% 4 3% 127 94% 135 100% All found guilty or cautioned 4 2% 9 4% 17 7% 30 13% 12 5% 198 83% 240 100%
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
59 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 6c Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for other indictable sexual offences by age group Aged 10 & Aged 12 & Aged 15 & Aged 10 & Aged 18 & Aged 21 & under 12 under 15 under 18 under 18 under 21 over Total Incest Cautions 1 10% 1 10% 0 0% 2 20% 0 0% 8 80% 10 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 1 33% 0 0% 2 67% 3 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 3% 4 11% 32 86% 37 100% All found guilty or cautioned 1 2% 1 2% 2 4% 4 8% 4 8% 42 84% 50 100%
Procuration Cautions 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 23% 17 77% 22 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 100% 9 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 27 100% 27 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 9% 53 91% 58 100%
Abduction Cautions 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 2 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 3 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 1 17% 0 0% 5 83% 6 100%
Bigamy Cautions 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 100% 19 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 100% 7 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% 5 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 31 100% 31 100%
Soliciting by a Man Cautions 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 31 94% 33 100% Guilty MC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13% 7 88% 8 100% Guilty CC 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% All found guilty or cautioned 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 2 5% 39 93% 42 100%
Total Sexual Offences Cautions 30 2% 229 18% 225 17% 484 37% 146 11% 671 52% 1,301 100% Guilty MC 2 0% 77 7% 189 17% 268 23% 83 7% 792 69% 1,143 100% Guilty CC 2 0% 44 2% 152 5% 198 7% 168 6% 2,434 87% 2,800 100% All found guilty or cautioned 34 1% 350 7% 566 11% 950 18% 397 8% 3,897 74% 5,244 100%
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
60 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 7 - Offenders sentenced to immediate custody by any court, England and Wales 1991 to 2000
Numbers Offence 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Buggery 187 147 139 130 140 99 102 108 94 87 Indecent assault on a male 186 174 205 206 260 280 264 268 279 231 Gross indecency between males 11 8 6 8 18 4 6 5 3 10 Rape of a female 499 448 418 403 494 497 522 615 582 535 Rape of a male ...... 14 34 40 50 38 Indecent assault on a female 947 868 894 950 1,165 1,257 1,257 1,321 1,304 1,258 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 62 48 50 36 54 35 30 28 31 27 Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 66 47 55 64 85 86 86 112 103 97 Incest 88 69 82 55 32 46 31 39 25 25 Procuration 39272627343535342215 Abduction 5 8 4 8 9 2 0 2 1 3 Bigamy 104126410144 Soliciting or importuning by a man3 1201001021 Abuse of position of trust4 ...... Gross indecency with a child 86 91 93 79 86 78 86 105 105 100
TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 2,178 1,937 1,976 1,968 2,379 2,439 2,458 2,687 2,615 2,431
Buggery 80% 69% 74% 69% 83% 88% 85% 77% 85% 82% Indecent assault on a male 40% 38% 50% 50% 52% 58% 55% 61% 61% 56% Gross indecency between males 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 23% Rape of a female 92% 91% 90% 91% 87% 90% 91% 97% 97% 96% Rape of a male ...... 58% 81% 93% 86% 93% Indecent assault on a female 39% 38% 43% 43% 49% 52% 51% 54% 54% 57% Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 59% 54% 66% 56% 67% 65% 68% 51% 60% 51% Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 30% 22% 32% 31% 42% 42% 43% 50% 54% 45% Incest 69% 72% 85% 74% 65% 94% 74% 81% 69% 63% Procuration 15% 19% 29% 26% 41% 59% 51% 55% 46% 42% Abduction 29% 44% 10% 53% 75% 40% 0% 50% 50% 60% Bigamy 10% 0% 31% 5% 13% 38% 25% 56% 50% 33% Soliciting or importuning by a man3 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 13% 11% Abuse of position of trust4 ...... Gross indecency with a child 39% 40% 46% 42% 55% 48% 51% 49% 48% 52%
TOTAL SEXUAL OFFENCES 39% 39% 46% 44% 51% 55% 54% 59% 61% 62%
Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplemenatry tables 2000, Volumes 1 to 4
61 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Table 8 Males aged 21 and over sentenced for sexual offences at the Crown Court: plea rates and custodial sentencing England and Wales 2001
Average sentence length Offence Pleaded guilty Custody rate (months) (exc. life) (%) Guilty Not guilty Guilty Not guilty Sexual offences Buggery 39 85 100 70.0 79.9 Indecent assault on a male 68 60 80 27.8 31.1 Rape 36 97 99 77.4 88.6 Indecent assault on a female 64 68 80 28.1 27.3 Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16 93 64 78 10.0 10.3 Gross indecency with a child 67 64 83 24.6 25.1 All sexual offences 60 71 87 34.2 49.9
Only those offences where at least 30 pleaded guilty or not guilty are shown.
Source: Home Office official
62 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Appendix 1: Existing sexual offences legislation99
Sexual Offences Acts 1956 to 1992
The Sexual Offences Act 1956 consolidated the statutory law with regard to sexual offences. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 amended the law relating to homosexual acts. It provided, inter alia, that buggery or acts of gross indecency between men over the age of 21 years (now 18 years) and in private would no longer amount to offences.
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 enacted a statutory definition of rape, and provided for the anonymity of complainants and defendants in rape cases. The provisions relating to anonymity of defendants were repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.158. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 extended the existing anonymity provisions in order to cover victims of various sexual offences from the time an allegation is made. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 repeals the anonymity provisions in the 1976 Act and amends the 1992 Act so as to extend its operation to cover offences previously covered only by the 1976 Act.
These Acts may be cited together as the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 to 1992 (see s.8(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992).
Sexual Offences Acts 1985 and 1993
The Sexual Offences Act 1985 increased the penalties for attempted rape and indecent assault on a woman. It also created two summary offences relating to the soliciting of women by men for the purposes of prostitution. The Sexual Offences Act 1993 abolished the common law presumption that a boy under 14 years was incapable of sexual intercourse.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act effected further substantial changes to the law. It redefined the offence of rape to include non-consensual anal intercourse with a man or a woman. It made lawful the buggery of a woman in private where the woman consents and both parties are over 18. It legalised homosexual acts in private where both parties consent and are over 18; the previous minimum age had been 21. It extended the Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and the merchant navy. It revised the penalties for the various circumstances in which buggery renncins unlawful despite the consent of both parties. It further extended the anonymity provisions to cover allegations of inchoate offences.
It also abolished any requirement for the court to give the jury a warning about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of a sexual offence.
Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996
99 Adapted from Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2003, Butterworths, 2003, pp1725- 7
63 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Section 2 of the 1996 Act extended the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales in relation to offences of incitement to commit certain sexual offences against children. Section 1 (dealing with conspiracy) was repealed by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998: see now the more general section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977, inserted therein by the 1998 Act, on conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom.
Sex Offenders Act 1997
The long title to the Act describes it as an Act to require the notification of information to the police by persons who have committed certain sexual offences, and to make provision with respect to the commission of certain sexual acts outside the. United Kingdom.
Part I (ss.1-6) imposes “notification requirements” on certain sex offenders. Failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notification requirements is an offence, as is the provision of false information (s.3).
Part II (ss.7 and 8) extends the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom (section 8 relating to Scotland).
The Act has been extensively amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997
This Act makes provision for regulating access by defendants and others to certain categories of material disclosed by the prosecution or by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in connection with proceedings relating to certain sexual and other offences, a list of which is contained in the Schedule to the Act
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
This Act contains further restrictions on the cross-examination of complainants in sexual offences. First, it prohibits cross-examination by the accused in person. Secondly, it tightens up the rules as to cross-examination of the complainant about previous sexual experience. Thirdly it extends the latter restrictions to complainants of all sexual offences, whereas they were formerly confined to allegations of “a rape offence”.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000
This Act amends the Acts of 1956 and 1967 so as to reduce the age at which consensual homosexual activity in private is lawful from 18 years to 16 years. It also created a new offence consisting of a person aged 18 or over having sexual intercourse or engaging “in any other form of sexual activity with or directed towards” a person under that age if he is in a position of trust in relation to that person.
64 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Appendix 2: Further reading
General
• Home Office, Setting the boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences, July 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/vol1main.pdf • Various, Setting the boundaries: supporting evidence, July 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/volmain2.html • Home Office, Responses to ‘Setting the boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences’ http://www.sexualoffencesbill.homeoffice.gov.uk/sexoffences_conresp.pdf • Home Office, Protecting the public, Cm 5668, November 2002 http://www.protectingthepublic.homeoffice.gov.uk/ • Howard League for Penal Reform, Unlawful sex: offences, victims and offenders in the criminal justice system of England and Wales, Waterlow, 1985
Responses to ‘Setting the boundaries’ consultation paper and the Sexual Offences Bill
• House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Sexual Offences Bill, 5th report of Session 2002-03, HC639, 10 July 2003 • House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee, Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, Sexual Offences Bill (HL), European Parliament (Representation) Bill and Harbours Bill 11th report of 2002-03, HL 55 2002/03, 12 February 2003 • House of Lords/House of Commons Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, 7th report of 2002-03, HL 74 2002/03, HC 547 2002/03; 17 March 2003 • House of Lords/House of Commons Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, Scrutiny of Bills: further progress report. Drawing special attention to Fire Services Bill, Sexual Offences Bill, Licensing Bill, HL 119 2002/03, HC 765 2002/03 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/119/119.pdf • Family Planning Association, Response to Sexual Offences Bill, 12 February 2003 http://www.fpa.org.uk/news/docs/sexoffs.doc • Christian Action Research and Education, Response to ‘Setting the Boundaries’, February 2001 http://www.care.org.uk/resource/docs/response_sexoffences.htm • Justice, Sexual Offences Bill, Second reading – House of Lords, February 2003 http://www.justice.org.uk/ourwork/criminaljustice.index.html • NSPCC, Queen’s speech heralds biggest ever sex laws shake-up, 13 November 2002 http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informationresources/panovqueenspee ch.htm
Rape
• Home Office, Report of the Advisory Group on the law of rape, Cm 6352, 1975 • Law Commission, Consent in sexual offences, 2000 http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/consent.pdf • Criminal Law Revision Committee fifteenth report, Sexual offences, Cm 9213, 1984
65 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• Home Office, Action plan to implement the recommendations of the HMCPSI/HMIC joint investigation into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape, July 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/action_plan.pdf • HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate/HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, A report on the joint inspection into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape, 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/CPSI_HMIC_Rape_Thematic.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Rape and sexual assault of women: findings from the British crime survey, RDS Findings 159, 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem, Research Study 237, 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s, Research Study 196, 1999 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors196.pdf • Adler, Zsuzsanna, Rape on trial, Routledge, 1987 • Temkin, Jennifer, Rape and the legal process (2nd ed), OUP, 2002
Children
• HL Deb 1 April 2003 c1180 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30401- 07.htm • Home Office, Internet Taskforce on Child Protection, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/crimreduc/internet/index.html • NSPCC, Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect, 2000 • Home Office, Caring for young people and the vulnerable? Guidance for preventing abuse of trust, 1999 • Home Affairs Select Committee, The conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children’s homes, HC 836 2001/02 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/83 602.htm • Government response to Home Affairs Select Committee report HC 836 2001/02, Cm 5799, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cm5799.pdf • Lost in care – report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974 [the Waterhouse report], HC 201 1999/2000 http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20102a.htm • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Sex offending against children: understanding the risk, Police research series 99, 1998 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf
66 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
Mental incapacity
• HL Deb 1 April 2003 c1166-1170 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30401- 03.htm#30401-03_star0 • HL Deb 10 April 2003 c396 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30410- 16.htm • Law Commission, Mental incapacity, Report 231, 1995 http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/library/lc231/contents.htm • Making Decisions Alliance, Campaign pack on reforming the law on mental capacity, 2003 http://www.makingdecisions.org.uk/campaign_pack.htm • Mencap/Voice/Respond, Behind closed doors: preventing sexual abuse against adults with a learning disability, 2001 http://www.mencap.org.uk/download/behind_closed_doors.pdf
Sex offenders
• Home Office, Consultation paper on the review of part one of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, 2001 • Home Office, Responses to the consultation paper on the review of part one of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sexoffenders_conresp.pdf • Home Office, Government proposals on the issue of sex offenders who travel abroad http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/travel_abroad.pdf • Home Office, Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000: amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, Circular 20/2001, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc0120.html • Home Office, Sex Offenders Act 1997, Circular 39/1997, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc9739.html • Association of Chief Police Officers of England Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO), Information about Sex Offenders, Media Advisory Group Guidance Notes 5 http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/GN5.doc • Home Office, Government crackdown on sex tourism, 15 April 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=456 • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Where are they now?: an evaluation of sex offender registration in England and Wales, Police research series 126, 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs126.pdf • Police Research Group, Home Office, Keeping track? Observations on sex offender registers in the U.S., Crime detection and prevention series 83, 1997 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps83.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Reconviction rates of serious sex offenders and assessments of their risk, RDS Findings 164, 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r164.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, The police perspective on sex offender orders: a preliminary review of policy and practice, Police research series 155, 2002 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs155.pdf
67 RESEARCH PAPER 03/61
• Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Risk management of sexual and violent offenders: the work of public protection panels, Police research series 139, 2001 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs139.pdf • Cobley, Cathy, Sex Offenders: Law Policy and Practice, Jordans, 2000
Criminal Justice
• Justice for all, Cm 5563, July 2002 http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5563/5563.pdf • Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales [the Auld report], 2001 http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ • Making punishments work: report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales [the Halliday report], July 2001 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/halliday.html • Home Office, Victims of crime page http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/victims/index.html
Prostitution and trafficking
• Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, For love or money: pimps and the management of sex work, Police research series 134, 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs134.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Stopping traffic: exploring the extent of, and responses to, trafficking in women for sexual exploitation in the UK, Police research series 125, 2000 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs125.pdf • Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, Street business: the links between sex and drug markets, Police research series 118, 1999 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs118.pdf
Library Research Papers
• House of Commons Library, Rape, Research Paper 93/100, 1993 • House of Commons Library, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill: ‘Age of consent’ and abuse of a position of trust, Research Paper 00/15, 2000 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-015.pdf • House of Commons Library, Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill: Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, disqualification from working with children, and truancy, Research Paper 00/35, 2000 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-035.pdf • House of Commons Library, Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill: Probation, Community Sentences and Exclusion Orders, Research Paper 00/36, 2000 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-036.pdf • House of Commons Library, Criminal Justice Bill: Sentencing, Research Paper 02/76, 3 December 2002
68