Unnecessarily monitoring low-risk sex offenders is “not in the public interest” as it takes resources away from managing higher-risk offenders, the Royal Court has been told.
The warning appeared in a judgment granting a man’s application to be removed from the Sex Offenders Register after his assessed risk fell and he completed work to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
The court recorded the view of DC Alexandra Le Chevalier from the Offender Management Unit, who said that managing low-risk offenders diverted resources from higher-risk cases.
To continue to manage low-risk offenders unnecessarily is not in the public interest, as it takes resources away from the management of higher risk offenders
royal court judgment
The man, whose identity is protected, was convicted of several sexual offences between ten and 15 years ago and jailed. Initially managed as a high-risk offender, he is now assessed as low risk.
Previous applications had failed. On one occasion, the man remained at moderate risk of reconviction and had not completed work to address his offending.
Since his last refusal, he had completed structured work recommended by a forensic psychologist.
He had complied with his restrictions and had not been investigated or convicted of any crime during his period of management.
The Offender Management Unit concluded: “There has been no intelligence or information to indicate a return to sexual offending and there are no apparent grounds to object to his application to be removed from the Sex Offenders Register.”
The Probation Service also supported the application, while acknowledging that removing statutory controls always carries some risk.
The judgment was published in anonymised form due to concerns that publicity could harm the man’s mental health and physical safety, and potentially increase the risk of reoffending.
DC Le Chevalier reported that the man faced “vigilante-related community concerns when he was released from custody and still endures verbal abuse in public”.
“There is a genuine concern that if this hearing were to be held in public or the judgment publicised, this could have an adverse impact on [the man’s] mental health and physical safety,” she added.
The man’s remaining risk factors included social rejection and a lack of positive social influences.
It was hoped removal from the Sex Offenders Register would help him find suitable employment and reduce his isolation.
The Attorney General agreed that the notification requirements were no longer justified.
