 WORLD
LAW/United Kingdom |
UK Perspective | Correspondents' Reports | Government and Legislation | Courts and Judgments | Legal Press | Law Schools | Study Law in the UK | Other || World Law Home
—————————————————————————————
Constitutional Structure Legal System Human Rights |
|
Alisdair A. Gillespie, Barrister
JURIST UK Correspondent
This is going to be a mixture of a UK Correspondents' Report and my regular UK Perspective. I say that because in this column I'll be focusing on just one story and its implications.
A couple of weeks ago a terrible crime was committed in the UK: a 9 year old girl, Sarah Payne, was murdered (click here for the story). Her killer has still not been caught. On Sunday, July 23, the News of the World, one of the major tabloid UK papers, published 49 names, photographs and locations of convicted sex offenders. This list will be developed on-line into a database comprising some 110,000 people. The paper says that it is doing this in memory of Sarah Payne and to protect the public. The paper's decision has come under fierce attack by children's charities, the police, the government and ex-offender organisations. I this column I'll try to explain the significance of all this, and why people think it is controversial.
In 1997 the government of the day, with cross-party support, set up the Sex Offenders Register. This was brought about by the Sexual Offenders Act 1997 which requires every person convicted of certain sex offences to register their name and address (together with any subsequent changes) with the police. Only those convicted of an offence on or after the date of commencement, or those released from prison on or after that date, were forced to sign the Register. It is estimated that there are around 110,000 persons convicted of sex offences against children in the United Kingdom, but only around 14,000 are on the Register because that is the number who have had to register. That is not to say that the remaining people are not known to the authorities, because they are.
The Register was never designed to be a public document. On this basis, the Sex Offenders Register in the UK can be contrasted with Megan's Law in the USA. In many American states, the information obtained through Megan's Law is available to the public, sometimes through books or CD-ROMs held in a central location - in a few states, the information is even available on the internet. However, as I say, the UK register was not set up in this way. The information was to be held by the authorities who would decide whether anyone needed to know.
Disclosure of a paedophile's identity or whereabouts was supposed to be the exception to the rule. The actual process followed is something like this. A person when convicted or released from prison will sign the Register listing their place of residence. Police constabularies in the UK have special units to deal with these people. Most call them Public Protection Units, but others refer to them as Paedophile Units. The officers are specially trained and frequently they are also members of the child protection unit. These officers go out to the houses of the sex offenders and talk to them. They explain what they expect of them, and find out what plans the offender has. Then the officers normally talk to other organisations like the probation service (similar to parole officers) and social services, and they decide what risk the person is. On that risk will depend the number of visits (s)he will receive, and how closely they will be watched.
If the risk is high, or the activities of the paedophile give cause for concern, then the police, in conjunction with the other agencies, will decide whether to disclose the identity of the person. Normally the threat of disclosure is enough to make a person toe the line, but if necessary the police are empowered to disclose the identity of the offender to a person, a family, a portion of society or society-at-large. There have been occasions when disclosure has been necessary and it has been used. The News of the World has upset this balance by deciding that it is going to make all this information available on the internet. Thus, suddenly, this information is available at- will.
The NSPCC, Childline and
NCH: Action for Children - the largest child protection
charities in the UK - have all condemned this action. So have the Association of
Chief Probation Officers and Tony Butler, the chief constable of Gloucestershire and
spokesman for the Association for Chief Police Officers on child abuse. Jack Straw,
the Home Secretary, and Paul Boatang, the To start, there is considerable doubt as to whether society can handle this
information. Paedophiles are probably the most hated people in British society. They
are considered the most evil of persons. This label is attached to people whatever the
circumstances of the offence, and some sections of society see it as their right to take
vengeance on these people. Vigilante actions in relation to paedophiles is, sadly, not
terribly uncommon. Last year there was an incident when a police station was under
attack by a crowd because of a (false) rumour that they were protecting a child abuser.
A couple of years ago a 14 year-old-girl died when her house was set alight. Those
who set fire to the house believed a paedophile lived there. They were wrong. Already
there have been attacks as a result of the News of the World information. The Daily
Mail Monday announced that a 49 year-old man was attacked by a crowd because he
looked like one of the people pictured in the paper. He was not him. The man pictured
was 60 and had a different name but the crowd did not believe his denials.
This treatment is bad enough, but when it is innocent people that are being treated in
this way it is horrific. One of the worries with the unilateral action taken by the News
of the World is that they do not have all the facts. The authorities are not co-operating
with this move because they disagree with what is happening. This means the News
of the World is relying on their reporters and anonymous tip-offs to compile their list.
The News of the World does not have a great reputation for accurate reporting, so
what happens if someone's picture or name is mistakenly used? Also, the information
may be out of date. If a registered offender moves he or she must tell the police, but
the News of the World may not know where they have moved to, so there is an added
danger that a mistake will be made.
Another major reason why people have criticised this action - and I should
say at this point that the critics include myself - is that there is a real danger that it the News of the World list will drive
paedophiles "underground." Child sex offenders know they are going to be treated as I have described above. When there was anonymity they felt, to some
degree, safe. So long as they co-operated with the authorities they could live out their
existence without anyone knowing who they are. Now that everyone will know who they are, however, there is a danger that they will just assume a new identity and move away from the
area. At that point not even the authorities would know who they are, and that worries
a lot of people. If the authorities do not know who they are, they cannot talk to them,
or help them. At that point they become very dangerous, because no-one is there to
ensure they do not reoffend.
A third criticism that can be levelled at the actions of the News of the World is that it
takes people's minds off a bigger danger. Most child abuse is perpetrated not by a
stranger but by someone within, or close to, the family. Some suggest that lists like that used by the News of the World actually make people feel too safe. Many people
believe that only strangers attack, and thus when someone close to them attacks they
are less likely to believe it, or cope with it. This is a big worry for many child
protection charities, and so more time and money will have to be spent to remind
people that it is not just strangers that cause children harm.
The News of the World has rejected all these criticisms and stated that it intends to
continue its crusade. In this it claims to have the backing of the majority of society, but
it is turning its back on virtually every professional body which deals with child
protection. It is quite telling that the professionals and the majority of society differ as
to what is or is not a threat, and how to deal with child abuse. It is also very sad. One
of the difficulties is that the child abuse is such an emotional and difficult subject - rationale debate quite often goes out of the window. Child abuse in the UK is no more
prevalent than in comparable countries. Different countries have different ways of
dealing with the threat. The News of the World has decided that it is going to follow
the example of the USA, even though the UK government does not want to do this,
and without building in many of the safeguards that are built in to US states' interpretation of
Megan's Law. What happens over the coming weeks will be very interesting. The
government is reviewing the operation of the Sex Offenders Register and indeed sex
offences in general, but it is not due to make that report until the end of the year. It is to be
hoped that the News of the World's actions do not result in this review being rushed,
because the issues are too serious for knee-jerk reactions.
JURIST will, of course, keep you updated. We are interested in your thoughts on the
actions of the News of the World, and on how to deal with paedophiles. If you wish to
comment, please send me an email.
[Editor's Note: the News of the World called off its "name and shame" campaign on August 4, hours after 200 people mobbed the home of a suspected paedophile in Portsmouth, throwing stones and setting a vehicle alight (click here for story).]
Missed last week's UK Perspective? Read it here!
———————————————————————
JURIST's own correspondent in the United Kingdom reports on recent developments in UK law:
The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute,
common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of parliament,
informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although parliament has
the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains
arbitrary actions.
Executive government rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers
(cabinet) traditionally selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, the
House of Lords. The prime minister is the leader of the majority party in the Commons, and the government is
dependent on its support.
Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination
of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve
parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 650-member House of
Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers,
can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. Only a few of the 1,200
members of the House of Lords attend its sessions regularly. The House of Lords has more time than the House
of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues.
The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of
legislation.
Source: U.S. Department of State
Most UK universities offer law courses. In the United Kingdom, law is a three-year undergraduate degree - entry is decided by reference
to "A-Level" points. "A-Levels" are examinations students take in the two years prior to
entering university and each grade is worth a different level of points. The hierarchy
of the UK law schools is roughly equal to those who wish or demand students who score the highest. The older
universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London etc.) are still considered to be some of
the most prestigious universities in which to "read law", but many newcomers have entered the field and, infused with energetic faculty members and diverse student bodies, are beginning to give the traditional institutions a run for their money.
There is no set format for UK law teaching; each university is allowed to decide
how the subject will be taught. Some universities offer a large number of lectures and a
small number of tutorials (e.g. "Oxbridge" and Durham), whereas other universities prefer
more tutorials where near one-to-one tuition can be offered (e.g. Northumbria
University) The only common thread uniting law degrees is that for them to qualify
as law degrees for professional purposes, students must study Constitutional law, E.U. law, Contract
Law, Law of Torts, Criminal Law, Land Law and Equity and Trusts.
At the end of three years students are awarded a bachelor's degree in law and
they must then decide what to do next. A large proportion - possibly around one-third
- will decide not to enter a career as a lawyer. The others must choose
between becoming a barrister (essentially, a courtroom litigator) or a solicitor. Students who do not have a qualifying
law degree (either because they have not studied one of the subjects listed above, or
because they have read for another degree) but who nonetheless wish to enter the professions must
do a one-year course called the Common Professional Examination and then they
too have to choose which profession to enter. A would-be barrister has to take the Bar Vocational
Course, which lasts one year. Prior to 1998 this course was taken in London at the
Inns of Court School of Law, but nowadays there are several universities which also
offer the training. Would-be solicitors study the Legal Practice Course, which is also
one-year long and is offered by numerous universities, as well as by the College of Law (the formal "solicitor's university").
After completing their respective professional courses, law students then undergo professional training. A barrister undertakes a year of
"pupillage" in barristers' "chambers", which is actually two six-month placements. A solicitor takes a training
contract ("articles") which lasts for two years.
Legal education in England and Wales is changing quite rapidly, and in the opinion of some academic and professional observers a number of the older
UK universities are not changing fast enough. Many UK law schools now offer skills-based
learning like moots and advocacy, and many universities are also offering part-time or
distance-learning degrees. The Open University (which was set up by the government in the 1960s
primarily to teach adults by distance learning, which then meant correspondence and television) is leading the way in this field in general;
in law, the University of London now offers an external LL.B. degree that can be taken by distance
learning, and Strathclyde University in Scotland is offering an LL.M. through the
internet. Bringing modern teaching methods to bear on legal education will help to ensure that law remains one of the more popular and respected degrees in the United Kingdom.
Alisdair A. Gillespie
Summer Study Abroad
Correspondents' Reports
Government and Legislation
———————————————————————
Courts and Judgments
———————————————————————
Legal Press
Law Schools
JURIST UK Correspondent
———————————————————————
Study Law in the UK
———————————————————————
Other
