Registration of Paedophiles

Key points

• In light of recent events, both here and overseas, consideration has been given to the establishment of a national child sex offender database, which would serve as the primary database for each of the States and Territories as well as being the principal conduit of information and intelligence exchange on child sex offenders within the Australian law enforcement community. Only police units responsible for investigating child exploitation would have direct access to the database, but intelligence from it would be released to authorised government and non-government third parties that have a duty of care over children. The background to this proposal is discussed on pages 3 to 6.
• The first issue to be resolved prior to the establishment of such a database is the scope of its coverage. Will it contain details on paedophiles only? Or will it contain information on anyone convicted of child sex offences, be they intra-familial or extra-familial? Although the term paedophile is used often as a synonym for child sex offender , there is a clinical difference. How the term is defined has legal implications for determining whether a crime has been committed, and whether people should be entered onto such a database (pp 7-11).
• Given the fact that the creation of a database on a particular category of offender is a novel concept, there are a number of other issues which need to be addressed. These include: what type of registration system should be used; whether information on those suspected of child sex offences should be kept; the extent to which the information is made available; the degree to which past details will be included; and whether any notification requirements will flow (pp11-17).
• Those in favour of such registration schemes commonly rely on the following arguments: the public has a right to know; it allows precautionary measures to be taken; law enforcement agencies will be assisted in their investigations; and it has a deterrent effect because offenders know they are being monitored (pp17-18).
• Those opposed list the following as reasons not to support such schemes: civil liberties and the right to privacy; they may force offenders underground; they create a false sense of security in the community; they are resource intensive to maintain and as such an inefficient use of State funds; and they could lead to additional litigation as certain aspects would be open to challenge in the courts (pp18-21).
• Registration schemes covering sexual offenders generally are already in place in many overseas jurisdictions. While there are numerous differences between the various schemes on a practical level, the fundamental notion of keeping tabs on those who may offend or re-offend in the future is the same. Active notification procedures are also a feature. The experience in the United States and the United Kingdom is discussed on pages 22 to 26.