Victims’ safety must never be secondary to resource pressures when managing sex offenders, Jersey Action Against Rape has warned following a Royal Court decision to remove a man from the Sex Offenders Register.
The charity was responding to an Express report on a judgment which recorded a police officer’s view that unnecessarily monitoring low-risk offenders was “not in the public interest” because it diverted resources from higher-risk cases.
JAAR said decisions about removing someone from the register must be approached with great care, with public safety and preventing further sexual harm remaining paramount.
“Risk assessments are an important part of offender management, but they cannot guarantee that reoffending will never occur,” it said.
The charity said the suggestion that monitoring low-risk offenders diverted resources raised questions about how risk was assessed, resources allocated and safeguarding maintained.
“Resources should be directed where they are most needed, but this must not come at the expense of robust safeguarding, appropriate oversight or public confidence in the system,” it said.
“We must also remember that sexual offences cause significant and lasting harm to victim-survivors.
“Their experiences, their safety and their concerns must never be secondary to administrative pressures or resource considerations.”
The case concerned a man convicted of several sexual offences between ten and 15 years ago, who was initially managed as a high-risk offender but is now assessed as low risk.
Since his previous unsuccessful application, he had completed structured work recommended by a forensic psychologist.
He had complied with restrictions and had not been investigated or convicted of any crime during his period of management.
The Offender Management Unit and Probation Service supported his application, and the Attorney General agreed that notification requirements were no longer justified.
JAAR also recognised the importance of rehabilitation, including the role of stable employment, appropriate support and positive social connections in reducing the likelihood of reoffending.
It called for continued transparency about how risk is assessed and when notification requirements are no longer necessary, while respecting confidentiality and legal rights.
“Our position is clear: rehabilitation and public protection must work together,” it said.
