The media’s obsession with itinerant sex offenders misses more problematic flaws within the notification scheme, says Alisdair Gillespie
At the beginning of November 2006, the media reported a ‘loophole’ that had been discovered at the heart of the notification procedures, see, for example, Paedophile Who Gave His Address As ‘In The Woods’, Daily Mail, 1 November 2006). This article seeks to demonstrate that the loophole had hardly been ‘discovered’ and that it detracts attention from more serious omissions in the scheme.
Notification procedures
The notification procedures originated in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (SOA 1997), Pt 1 which has now been repealed and replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003), Pt 2. The requirement to notify attaches to people who are cautioned or convicted of a specified crime. The relevant crimes are set out in SOA 2003, Sch 3, and the duration of the notification requirement depends on the sentence imposed by the court and the age of the offender—if an offender was aged under 18 then the notification period for determinate
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
