The recent Government announcement concerning developments in the law on sexual offences has received relatively little notice, perhaps because of the distractions provided by the revelations at the tribunals. The developments concern a register of sex offenders and the right to representation in court for alleged rape victims. On the face of it, the creation of a register of sex offenders looks like a simple matter, but it isn't. It makes a great deal of sense to have such a register for the benefit of schools, youth organisations and social service bodies whose employees or officers are in a position of trust in relation to children. It will also be of benefit to the Garda if it facilitates tracing the movements of convicted sex offenders.
But should a person convicted of a sexual offence in his or her early teens, who has received treatment, and who has not, so far as is known, offended again for some years, necessarily remain on the register, with all that this entails? To keep the person on the register in these circumstances would appear to be unfair. But what if the person is removed from the register and then seeks employment in, say, a childcare centre? What if a 19-year-old has consensual sex with, say, a 16-year-old and is convicted and given a suspended sentence or fined a nominal sum? Should that 19-year-old go on a register of sex offenders for life?
Most people, it seems fair to say, would agree that the 19-year-old should never appear on the register in the first place. The question of how long the former abuser mentioned in the earlier example should remain on the register is more difficult. It would seem fair that, in certain limited circumstances, judges should have some discretion as to whether a convicted person's name should go on the register. It would also seem fair that persons whose names are on the register should be entitled to make a case, again in certain circumstances, that their names should be removed.
Other difficult questions arise. Should schools be told if a convicted paedophile moves into the neighbourhood? Who in the school should be told? How is this information to be used to protect the children? These are all complex issues which must be addressed in the legislation putting the register in place and which, no doubt, will be aired in the courts subsequently. No doubt, too, the limited right to representation which is to be given to alleged rape victims will also be tested in the courts. The legislation will entitle them to be represented by counsel if they are being questioned regarding their past sexual history.
So far as is known, officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform believe that any attempt to provide a more wide-ranging right to representation would be unconstitutional. The limited right which is to be granted will provide welcome protection for victims of this vicious crime. Because it is limited, it will not, however, protect them against such injustices as long delays in getting trials under way. People working with rape victims have suspected in the past that such delays are sometimes manufactured by defence lawyers in the hope that alleged victims will find the strain too great and will withdraw the complaint. Whether or not that is so, it remains the case that the delays in proceeding with cases are, in themselves, a source of injustice to victims of crime, and that victims would cry out against these delays if given the right to do so.