Report on the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 200- (“the Law”)
INTRODUCTION
The aim of the Law is to reduce the risk of sexual offences being committed by managing the risk posed to the public, or individual members of the public, by sex offenders and those who may be sexual predators on children.
It has long been recognised by those who work with sex offenders that their offences are rarely isolated lapses in judgment which will not be repeated. Where a person is convicted of a sexual offence, the sentence can be severe but almost all offenders are released at some point, with little or no supervision after release. Even after serving a custodial sentence, the sex offender may still pose a risk of harm to the public or to particular members of the public 1 .
The nature of sexual offences is such that harm is frequently caused to the victim which is profound and long lasting; such offences cause not only physical injury, but also psychological damage which can affect not only the victim but their families and the wider society. It is therefore incumbent on government not only to prosecute such crime, but to take particular measures to prevent sexual offences being committed, for the benefit of the victim and society as a whole.
One of the key factors in ensuring the protection of the public from the risk posed by sex offenders is for the public authorities, primarily the Police, to know that an offender resides in the Island and to know, at the very least, the person’s name and address so that they can monitor activities where necessary.
KEY PROVISIONS
Notification requirements (Articles 3-9)
In reality sex offenders become subject to notification requirements in the UK, sometimes known colloquially as a `sex offenders’ register’. Jersey has adopted the same approach in the Law.
Notification requirements will work as follows in Jersey under the Law - a convicted sex offender has to notify the Police of his name and address (including a change of address). The Law also empowers the Minister to make an Order to require those offenders to tell the authorities of their travel plans.
Knowing the whereabouts of such a person and observing his activities may in some cases be sufficient deterrent to an offender. However, in other cases, it will have a limited effect in preventing crime unless restrictions can be placed on certain aspects of the offender’s behaviour which put him at greatest risk of re-offending. Therefore, certain Court Orders may be sought.
Court Orders (Articles 10 -12)
Police powers have traditionally been largely reactive to offences which have already been committed. However, Police tactics have, in recent years, begun to be more proactive in targeting criminals and attempting to prevent the harm caused by serious crime such as drug importation. In the field of sexual offences, crime prevention is particularly pertinent. There is a recognised need to manage the behaviour of sex offenders in the community in ways which would reduce their chances of, and opportunities to, re-offend.
Existing powers available to the Police are inadequate as preventative tools. One of the few powers available is to arrest a person for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. This is not an appropriate power to use in most circumstances relating to sexual offences, many of which take place in private and may not involve the use or threat of actual violence.
The behaviour of a predatory paedophile may indicate that he is at increased risk of committing a serious sexual offence, but not a breach of the peace and, therefore, the Police are powerless to prevent a serious crime being committed.
The Law provides that a court can make orders (Restraining Orders under Article 10) to prevent a convicted sex offender acting in a way which presents a threat of serious sexual harm to the public, or to a particular person or persons if it is satisfied that an order is necessary to protect the public or that person or those persons. Note in particular that such an order may prohibit a person from engaging in work or other activities relating to children. Breach of a Restraining Order is a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine. Similar Orders are available in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and are known as ‘Sexual Offences Prevention Orders’.
Furthermore, many sexual offences against children never, for a variety of reasons, result in a criminal conviction. Children are targeted by sexual predators simply because they cannot make decisions for themselves; they are incapable of forming consent; they do not always communicate well; or understand what has happened to them; and therefore will either fail to report the offence or, if they do, will not be capable of being good witnesses. Added to this are the criminal rules of evidence and procedure, such as the corroboration rule for the evidence of children and in relation to sexual offences. In common with other jurisdictions, the conviction rate in relation to complaints of sexual offences against children in Jersey is very low.
There are also instances where the sexual behaviour towards the victim might not amount to a crime under Jersey law, but be either a precursor to a crime or cause harm to the child in itself. If a person performs a sexual act in front of a child or shows him/her pornography, for example 2 , that might indicate that the person is at high risk of committing a sexual offence. Unless the case was suitable for an Emergency Protection Order under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (which would usually lead to care proceedings) or an injunction is appropriate, there is little that can be done to prevent harm being inflicted, or an offence committed.
The Law provides for Child Protection Orders (Article 11) which are civil orders to be obtained from the Royal Court by the Attorney General 3 . Such an Order may be made where the Court is satisfied that a person has, for example, had sex in front of a child, or shown him/her pornography and it is necessary to make the Order to protect the child.
The Order will prevent the person subject to the Order from engaging in certain behaviour specified in the Order. The Order may only make restrictions that are necessary to protect children from the defendant. Breach of a Child Protection Order is a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine. Similar Orders are available in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and known as Risk of Sexual Harm Orders.
The Law also makes provision for Travel Orders (Article 12). These are orders for which the Attorney General may apply to the Royal Court. The Court may make an order preventing a sex offender from travelling outside Jersey generally, or make a more limited order prohibiting him from travelling to a particular place. The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that that the offender’s acts/behaviour make such an order necessary to protect children or a particular child, outside of Jersey, from serious sexual harm from the offender. Breach of such an order is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine. Similar Orders are available in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and known as Foreign Travel Orders.
Other Provisions
There have been instances where Jersey residents have committed acts abroad which would be offences in the foreign country as well as sexual offences in Jersey (Article 17). At present such people may return to Jersey not having been prosecuted in the foreign country and cannot be prosecuted in Jersey as Jersey Courts do not have jurisdiction to try an offence committed outside the Island. This will change under the Law.
There have also been cases of families who have spent some time in Jersey and some time in the UK or elsewhere. Allegations of sexual offences have been made in respect of members of such families, some of which are alleged to have taken place in Jersey and others outside the Island. It is in the interests of justice that a court in Jersey should have power to try all matters together if it considered it appropriate to do so. At present, this is not possible. Under the Law it will be.
Turning to other aspects of the Law, it is important to note that it is primarily concerned with prevention of crime. The Police will obtain personal information about an offender as a result of the notification requirements (Article 27). If the information is to be put to proper use the Police will sometimes need to share the information with other agencies or individuals who need to know that information in order to take action to prevent crime. This may be an agency such as the Children’s Service, or another Police Force, but it may also be a private individual. The provisions of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 contain an exemption which allows the disclosure of personal information for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of crime under certain circumstances. In creating a statutory framework for the collection of such personal data, which will inevitably lead to the disclosure of some of that information to those who need it for the specified purposes, it is preferred practice that the Police operate under a positive power to disclose, rather than rely on an exemption.
The Police need to ensure that having disclosed the information, it will not be misused. The Law does not create a source of information available to the public at large. If the Police disclose information to another body or individual they will disclose for a particular purpose. That purpose must come within the above restriction. The recipient can only use that information for that purpose. Failure to adhere to this is a criminal offence under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law, 2005. That wider use must still be within the statutory restriction. Police use of personal information remains subject to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 and to the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.
There are important provisions for the ongoing management and assessment of persons who pose a risk of sexual harm in Article 28 of the Law. The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force and relevant Ministers must, soon after the Law takes effect, enter into a general agreement to set out arrangements to assess and manage persons who pose a risk of sexual harm. The relevant Ministers are those for Home Affairs, Housing, Health and Social Services, Education Sport and Culture and Economic Development. The general agreement must be laid before the States.
In implementing the agreement, co-operation must be sought with office holders i.e. heads of Probation, Customs and the Prison and advice may be sought from various interested parties e.g. Comité des Chefs de Police and organisations that provide accommodation for the homeless.
In addition the Chief Police Officer must make an annual report to the Minister for Home Affairs, who must lay the report before the States, showing action taken to implement the general agreement. Article 28 should help the Police monitor effectively sex offenders or those who show a proclivity to sexual offending towards children. This inclusive approach (of the Police working with other agencies) should lower the risk of offending.
Provisions akin to the above exist in the UK under sections 325-327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, entitled Assessing etc. risks posed by sexual or violent offenders.
It is also worth stressing that the Law has retrospective effect e.g. it may, on application by the Attorney General to the Royal Court under Article 13(2), apply to those who committed offences before the Law comes into force.
Finally, safeguards are offered by appeal provisions against the time an offender is subject to notification requirements and the orders (in Articles 10-12) etc.
THE UK SCHEME AND THE BACKGROUND TO THE LAW
In response to the increasing awareness of the harm caused by sexual offences to both children and adults and the need to take action to prevent offences where possible, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was brought into force in the UK on 1 September 1997. This required convicted sex offenders to notify their names and addresses to the Police. This was the first time offenders had been required to notify the Police of their details and was, therefore, an improvement on earlier lists of known offenders kept, for example, on the Police National Computer, which contained an historic list of known offenders but no information of their current whereabouts.
The Act also allowed for the prosecution in the UK of UK nationals who had committed sexual offences abroad which were offences both in that country and in the UK.
The 1997 Act was recognised to have significant defects such as allowing 14 days to notify the Police of an address, which enabled itinerant offenders not to notify at all. It also had no provision relating to foreign travel; it did not apply to those whose offences were not sexual offences per se but were clearly sexually motivated and showed the offender posed a serious risk of causing sexual harm. The kidnap and murder of a young child, for example, would almost certainly be sexually motivated but would result in convictions for kidnap and murder, not for any of the specific sexual offences to which the Act applied. Thus a person convicted of such offences, despite posing a significant risk to the public, would not be subject to the notification requirements of the Act.
Furthermore, the Act did not contain provision for the curtailment of certain behaviour that would protect the public from harm. Further legislation was necessary. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced Sex Offender Orders, which were civil orders available on application to a Magistrate's Court by the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which an offender resided. The Order would prevent the subject of the application from doing anything mentioned in the Order if the Court was satisfied that the Order was necessary to prevent serious sexual harm to the public and that the person was a sex offender. The breach of such an Order would be a criminal offence and be punishable with imprisonment. These Orders are similar to Restraining Orders provided for in the Law, known as ‘Sexual Offences Prevention Orders’ in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Further amendments to the 1997 Act were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2000. Eventually, all provisions relating to the notification requirements on sex offenders and the Orders necessary to restrict their behaviour (including the Risk of Sexual Harm Orders) were brought together under the provisions of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sections 80-136) which became law on 1st May 2004.
The 2003 Act contains provisions similar to those in the draft Law relating to notification requirements, notification for travel outside Jersey, Restraining Orders, Child Protection Orders, Travel Orders and jurisdiction to try offences committed abroad. The development of the draft Law has been given careful consideration due to -
- The recognition of the earlier failings of the UK legislation and a desire to rectify those shortcomings; and
- the development of UK legislation, and a wish to ensure that provisions in Jersey are at least as rigorous as those in the current UK scheme, to avoid Jersey being seen by those subject to restrictions elsewhere as a jurisdiction in which offences might more easily be committed.
At the same time it is necessary to ensure that measures taken to prevent the commission of sexual offences are necessary and proportionate and are compatible with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. It is always a difficult balance to strike between government’s responsibility to build a safe society, protecting especially the weak and vulnerable, whilst at the same time safeguarding an individual’s rights to determine their own behaviour in a free society. Safeguards are included in the Law which aim to achieve this balance. As well as compatibility with the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’, there is judicial oversight of all applications for Court Orders and provisions for the assessment and management of sex offenders under Article 28 of the Law.
CONSULTATION
A working party comprising representatives of Law Officers’ Department, Police, Probation and Children’s Service met at an early stage in the development of the Law to produce a framework for the desired provisions. Many shortcomings in the UK scheme were identified and proposals for the draft law which would avoid those failings, and perhaps improve upon the UK scheme, were agreed.
Subsequent revisions of the draft have taken place to keep pace with the statutory regime in UK and a final draft was consulted upon widely. At all stages the Police, who are most closely affected by the proposals, have been consulted. Professional opinion has also been sought from the Health and Social Services Department and the Probation and After-Care Service. The Jersey Child Protection Committee and the Jersey Domestic Violence Forum also support the proposals. The Bailiff and the Data Protection Commissioner have also been asked for their comments.
FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS
Overview
The States allocated the sum of £177,000 to fund the implementation of the draft Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 200- in the 2009 Annual Business Plan. This cost estimate was produced following the preparation of a detailed assessment of the implementation costs during the early stages of the draft law’s preparation. The sum voted covers only the annual costs anticipated by the States of Jersey Police. Other services, notably the Probation and After-Care Service and Social Services, were unable to provide cost estimates in time for the 2009 process as those elements of the law which most affect them were still evolving at that time.
Given that the law is not being debated by the States until late in 2009, and will need to pass through the usual approval process before registration, there will need to be agreement between agencies as to how to make the best use of the available resource in 2010. Clearly, appropriate staff will need to be recruited in advance and there will be other preparatory work that can take place prior to full implementation.
The following background information will enable States members to understand how the relevant costs arise.
States of Jersey Police
Background
In response to the concerns raised concerning public protection work, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) began work on a Manual of Guidance for Protecting the Public in 2006 (published in 2007). The States are asked to note key extracts from the paper concerning resourcing issues, which are reproduced below.
“Forces have varying levels of resources and requirements and there are competing priorities. Public protection work is generally extremely demanding and stressful. In order to fulfil responsibilities to the public and also to ensure, as a threshold standard, the welfare, health and safety of individual staff members, officers should not be required to manage more than fifty Registered Sex Offenders in the community at any one time. This suggested workload assumes that Public Protection Unit officers have the necessary administrative and intelligence-led support. This number should not contain more than twenty per cent very high or high-risk offenders… Any deviation from this standard should be justified and documented according to the principles of defensible decision-making.
There are currently no multi-agency minimum standards set in relation to the regularity of visits. However this guidance suggests that forces should achieve the following minimum frequency per risk category:
- Very high monthly
- High three monthly
- Medium six monthly
- Low twelve monthly
It should be recognised that such frequencies for visits represent a minimum standard and that risk assessment may require more frequent visit. Best practice also suggests that such visits be completed by designated and trained public protection officers as opposed to local beat officers, and they are conducted by officers in pairs as opposed to alone. Both of these factors introduce issues to consider in determining police resources for public protection.”
The Current Position in Jersey
In 2004, in anticipation of new legislation to manage sex offenders, the Force was granted an additional police post in the 2005 Fundamental Spending Review. Subsequently, a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of Probation and Constabulary entitled `Managing Sex Offenders in the Community’ has revealed that the resource implications of managing sex offenders are more significant than could have been predicted in 2004.
ACPO guidelines (2007) state that manageable workloads are essential for the safety and welfare of officers, resilience during periods of sickness, leave and other absences and for ensuring effective and proactive management of offenders. Workloads should take into account factors such as the size of the geographical area, the number of approved premises in the area and the number and type of offenders and potentially dangerous persons requiring management. Furthermore, protecting the public is a potentially high risk area of business for the Police Service and it is therefore vital that there are high standards of professional practice and intrusive supervision.
These expectations can be translated into resource implications by taking the example of Dumfries and Galloway, which is the smallest police force in England, Scotland and Wales. It serves a population of about 130,000 people. Dumfries and Galloway have a dedicated Sex Offender Management Team within their Public Protection Unit. The Sex Offender Team is managed by a detective inspector. It has one detective sergeant and two detective constables plus administrative support. This Unit currently manages 120 registered sex offenders.
By comparison, the Police National Computer identifies the names of over 250 convicted sex offenders with a Jersey address. The current detective constable in post is in the process of reviewing these records and it is estimated that between 100 and 130 of these people should be registered retrospectively once the law is in place. New convictions will then add to this number.
Resources Approved in the 2009 Annual Business Plan
In order to fulfil responsibilities to the public and ensure the welfare, health and safety of staff, the States approved £177,000 in the 2009 Annual Business Plan to fund the following additional posts:
1 x Detective Sergeant
1 x Detective Constable (additional to post approved through the 2005 FSR process)
1 x Public Protection Unit Administrator
The detective sergeant will monitor and evaluate policies and procedures relating to notification requirements for sexual offenders and other issues relating to their management, ensure information and intelligence is appropriately evaluated and actioned, supervise the process of risk assessment and management of sexual offenders, attend Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) meetings, quality assure Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) records and prepare briefing papers for senior management.
The additional post will mean that there will be two detective constables managing sex offenders. They will manage those individuals who are subject to notification requirements, including home visits and liaison with other forces, carrying out and reviewing risk assessments and risk management plans, ensuring that ViSOR is updated with appropriate information, attending and providing input to MAPPA meetings and making applications for civil orders under the law.
The Administrator will maintain administrative systems in support of the unit, develop and maintain databases, prepare and produce statistical information and ensure correspondence received is actioned and replies prepared.
The annual cost of these additional posts is approximately £160,000. These costs could be reduced by not opting to register sex offenders in Jersey retrospectively. Clearly, there is a risk of re-offending that is inherent to such a strategy, but it would obviate the need to create a new detective constable post at this stage. Only newly convicted offenders would be registered and the workload would only grow as new prosecutions worked their way through the system. Irrespective of this decision, the creation of a new supervisory post is deemed essential. The administrative post will improve efficiency by allowing police officers to focus on police work and not tying them up in administration.
Non-staff costs of £17,000 will provide essential access to the ViSOR. This system provides the Police, Probation and Prison Services with a confidential, shared national database to assist those services to identify, risk assess and manage sexual offenders. It would be inconceivable for the States of Jersey Police not to have access to and use ViSOR in the management of sex offenders. It will also ensure that other forces/authorities in the UK are aware of our registered sex offenders should they come to light in the UK.
Probation and After-Care Service
The Courts will expect assessment and enforcement procedures to be undertaken efficiently and legally. Similarly, the introduction of the law will create additional work that the Probation Service must ensure is compatible with best practice. The Service regularly inspects its work and any criticism of inadequate work could seriously undermine the confidence of courts and the public alike, emphasising the importance of adequate staff resourcing and training.
The Probation Service currently deals with sex offenders who are currently subject to Probation Orders, in prison or on young offender licences. Voluntary after-care is also offered to all prisoners who are released from prison.
The Sex Offenders Law will create additional work in a number of areas:
- Updated risk assessments for offenders applying to the Court for an order revoking the notification requirement.
- The preparation of risk assessments, and possibly providing supervision, for those liable for Restraining Orders.
- Possible supervision orders for 35 offenders who have been assessed as high or very high risk. These Restraining Orders, with a supervisory condition, could continue for at least 5 years.
- On the advice of a forensic psychologist who trains Probation, Police and Social Services in Jersey and the Isle of Man in the effective assessment and management of sexual offenders, up to 12/14 high or very high risk sex offenders would need to be managed by the additional appointment of a full time Probation Officer.
- The introduction of Child Protection Orders would involve an assessment on the risk of harm posed to children by the defendant (see Social Services section). This type of statutory work for a Civil Court would be a new and, as yet, unresourced, area for the Probation Service.
- The need for assessments of risk of sexual harm for offenders who become subject to notification where they have committed sexually aggravated offences before the commencement of the Law.
An additional post of MAPPA co-ordinator is needed in order to ensure that individuals are properly assessed and managed through these inter-agency processes. The skill set required for this post would suit that of an experienced Probation Officer. The post would be based at Police HQ, and there would have to be accountability to the Chief Officer of Police, in addition to professional supervision from the Probation Service. This post could be provided on secondment from the Probation Service on a rotational basis at the level of Senior Practitioner or Team Leader Grade 11/12.
Resources Required
The Probation and After-Care Service is unable to absorb the potential cost of implementing the new legislation. The following consequential costs take account of resource observations from an expert in the field:
a. The appointment of two experienced Probation Officers at a cost of £129,000 (including on-costs).
b. Provision of training and consultancy at £1,000 per day. This would total £6,000per annum and it would be advisable for this consultancy level is retained for no less than five years.
c. Provision of joint assessment training with the States of Jersey Police at a provisional sum of £3,000 for one year only.
Given the other commitments of the Service, there would be a serious risk of incomplete and potentially flawed work being undertaken if the appropriate resources were not found to work with sex offenders. This could compromise public safety and would give the Probation Board and senior managers cause for considerable concern.
Health & Social Services
There will an impact upon different areas of Health & Social Services in terms of new tasks and additional service pressures. For example, as mentioned in the probation section, in the case of applications for Child Protection Orders, it is highly likely that the Court will not be prepared to grant an application without a background report and risk assessment on the child or children concerned, being prepared by a children’s specialist from the Children’s Service. It is also likely that there will be an expectation of Children’s Service, Special Needs Service or Mental Health Services contributing to risk assessments regarding the threat posed by a registered person within a household where children, or a learning disabled or mentally ill adult resides.
It is likely that some assessments, requiring preparation by a specialist (psychiatrist or other mental health professional) may cost up to £4,000 each and there would need to be additional provision within ‘Court and Case’ costs to cover this given the likely increase in volume of these reports. It is estimated that a maximum of 20 such reports could be ordered in years 1 and 2, and 5 per year thereafter. In terms of the additional resources likely to be required by the Children’s Service, it is felt that two Social Worker Posts will be required, one at Main Grade CS10 (£55,000 pa) and one at Senior Practitioner level Grade CS11 (£61,000 pa).
The senior post would receive, co-ordinate and allocate all new referrals (estimated by the SoJ Police to be in the region of twenty plus each year), identifying the level of risk and complexity and undertaking assessments on any referrals relevant to children’s cases not already allocated within the Children's Service. This post would also support any main grade worker undertaking an assessment on an individual within (or seeking to join) the family home of children they are already working with. This could be on the current case load of any one of our twenty plus social workers, across all areas of children's social work.
The Senior will assist and support the preparation of any report, sign-off the report as appropriate for submission to MAPPA and/or the Courts, and support the main grade worker in any multi-agency meetings. They will be expected to develop knowledge and skills in this area so they can act as a 'service lead' and can be called on to give advice at any relevant planning meetings (held within CS or with partner agencies) where the potential risk of an offender is being discussed and a decision is required on whether this service should make a referral and/or recommendation to the MAPPA Co-ordinator.
The main grade post would increase overall manpower resources so that individual ‘case officers’ working on cases already allocated to them can undertake appropriate assessments of any risks ‘to the child (or children)’ occasioned by potentially placing any offender into a family home. This will be particularly relevant in the consideration of any applications for Child Protection Orders.
Resources Required
Health & Social Services is unable to absorb the potential cost of implementing the new legislation. The following consequential costs take account of the views of senior service managers:
a. Additional amounts within ‘Court and Case costs’ to cover specialist psychiatric / psychological reports ordered by the court in considering any applications.
b. The appointment of a Senior Practitioner Social Worker to the Children’s Service at a cost of £61,000 (including on-costs.)
c. The appointment of a main-grade Social Worker to the Children’s Service at a cost of £55,000 (including on-costs).
Given pressures that already exist elsewhere within these critical services, it would be impossible for them to take up the volume and complexity of the tasks required by this new legislation without the appropriate resources being put into place as outlined.
Law Officers’ Department
Applications by the Attorney General to impose notification requirements and to obtain Restraining Orders and Child Protection Orders will peak during the first two years after commencement of the Law and are then STD expected to level off. The numbers involved are not expected to be too onerous for the Law Officers’ Department to absorb in its general caseload as many of the applications for notification requirements and Restraining Orders will become part of the normal sentencing process STD .
Court and Case Costs
It is anticipated that additional work can be absorbed within the current staffing levels of the Magistrate’s Court and the Royal Court. There will, however, be additional Courts and Case Costs arising from defence lawyer’s costs, risk assessment reports and additional court costs. The estimate of costs is summarised in the table below.
Summary Table of possible financial implications – Judicial Proceedings
Heading | Year 1 (2011) | Year 2 (2012) | Year 3 (2013) |
Defence Lawyer’s costs | £435,000 | £435,000 | £89,000 |
Cost of Risk Assessments | £75,000 | £75,000 | £15,000 |
Court Commissioners’ Costs | £25,000 | £25,000 | £3,000 |
Court of Appeal Costs | £24,000 | £24,000 | £4,800 |
Totals | £559,000 | £559,000 | £111,800 |
The impact will depend on the actual numbers and types of cases that come before the courts, but this is difficult to predict precisely. Whilst people are more aware of their rights and ready to challenge decisions, it is likely that the number of appeals will be diminished by the certainty of media reporting. The estimate assumes that there will be 50 retrospective cases during the first 2 years of the operation of the law, whilst year 3 shows the estimated costs of ongoing cases based on 5 per annum. It further assumes that the Police will require 30 Restraining Orders for retrospectively registered sex offenders. A number of more detailed assumptions have been made in arriving at the figures shown in the table.
Summary of Implementation Costs
The following table summarises, by department, the implementation costs outlined in the proceeding paragraphs. As explained below, costs will be incurred in 2010, but the quantum will depend upon when the law is approved and brought into force.
Service | Description | Revenue Costs |
States of Jersey Police: | 1 x Detective Sergeant 1 x Detective Constable 1 x PPU Administrator ViSOR costs |
160,000 17,000 |
Probation & After-Care Services: | 1 x Probation Officer 1 x Probation Officer (MAPPA Coordinator) Training & Consultancy | 64,500 64,500 9,000 |
Health & Social Services: | 1 x Senior Practitioner Social Worker 1 X Social Worker Specialist psychiatric reports (Court & Case Costs) | 61,000 55,000 |
| Total Annual Revenue Costs: | 431,000 |
| | |
| Court and Case Costs (2011 / 2012): | |
| Judicial Proceedings | 559,000 |
| Specialists Assessment Reports | 80,000 |
| Total: | 639,000 |
| | |
| Court and Case Costs (2013 onwards): | |
| Judicial Proceedings | 111,800 |
| Specialists Assessment Reports | 20,000 |
| Total: | 131,800 |
As mentioned in the Overview, the States has already approved the sum of £177,000 towards the implementation of this law; however, this sum only covers the annual costs anticipated by the States of Jersey Police. Other services were unable to submit cost estimates in time for the 2009, and commencement of the 2010, business planning processes. In view of this, the Council of Ministers agreed earlier in the year to inscribe an additional sum of £70,000 in the 2010 Draft Business Plan so that some provision was made for any additional cost. As can be seen from the above table, the actual anticipated annual revenue costs total £431,000 creating a shortfall of £184,000 once the full effect of the law is felt. Due to slippage in the implementation of the law, the full cost is unlikely to be felt until 2011 so there is unlikely to be an immediate requirement for additional funding in 2010 provided the Home Affairs Department is able to carry forward any underspend from 2009. To enable recruitment of these posts to take place next year, however, agreement in principle will be needed to provide full funding, i.e. the additional £184,000 in advance of the 2011 business planning process.
Separate provision will also need to be made for the impact on Court and Case Costs. The Department is aware, however, that Court and Case Costs does not have sufficient monies and additional funding will be required to support the first two years at the full amount, and then beyond.
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Compatibility Statement
Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 requires the Minister in charge of a Projet de Loi to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Projet with the Convention rights (as defined by Article 1 of the Law). On 2nd December 2008, the Minister for Home Affairs made the following statement before Second Reading of this Projet in the States Assembly –
In the view of the Minister for Home Affairs the provisions of the Draft Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 200- are compatible with the Convention Rights.
1 See, for example, Sex Offenders in the Community : Managing and Reducing the Risks.
Amanda Matravers : Willan 2003. ISBN 1-84392-120-0
2 Other than where a person is in a position of trust under Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007, where such acts would be criminal offences.
3 A Child Protection Order may be obtained against someone who has committed no criminal offence. NB notification requirements only apply to those convicted of a criminal offence.
4 [1999] Crim L.R. 153
5 Section 82 of the 2003 Act.
Advocate Emma Hollywood projected to do 120 applications in the first few months – should this paragraph be altered?
Are PHQ Legal Advisers content to carry out this task?
2009 08 14 Final Report for Lodging
gov.je