header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 April 2007 / Alisdair Gillespie
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Child law , Community care
printer mail-detail

Smoke and mirrors

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Legislating for Sarah's Law is unnecessary and will not make our children any safer, says Alisdair Gillespie

The tabloid press got excited earlier this month about the fact that “Sarah’s Law” was going to be piloted in certain parts of England and Wales. Although the Home Office quickly announced that it would not be piloted but rather a small number of procedural measures had been discussed which would be piloted over the coming weeks, the intense media pressure demonstrates that Sarah’s Law remains a live political issue.

It was named after the schoolgirl Sarah Payne, who was murdered in 2000 by Roy Whiting, and is intended to be a UK version of “Megan’s Law”—the US system whereby parents are notified of convicted sex offenders in their area. The main force behind Sarah’s Law is the News of the World although it is assisted by other tabloid newspapers and certain pressure groups. Sarah’s Law has never been fully explained in terms of how it will work in practice other than to say it will

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll