To: The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Dear Ms May,
I wish to survey your thoughts, and the official position and intention of the Ministry/Government, on the following issues:
R v Wiles (2004): Ramifications For Police Forces And Those Who Are Required To Register, Under The Sexual Offences Act 2003
I am sure that you are aware of this document (www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/IAG/SORExtendedSentence.pdf).
The main thrust, of the implications of Wiles, is understood, if not agreed upon..
I request clarification, of the following passage, and how it should impact, consistently, on all police forces, in regards to them relinquishing people from (or maintaining them within), notification requirements:
"... to make sure that they have applied the effects of this judgement from at least 1 April 2005."
Please provide a more extended explanation, of what this passage is meant to convey, and, in particular, the nature of the phrase 'at least' and:
e.g. does it mean, that Wiles is retrospective, based on sentencing, prior to Wiles and/or 1/4/2005?
e.g. does it mean, that the requirement to notify, is retrospective, based on sentencing, before 1/4/2005, in light of Wiles?
If the answer to either of these question is "yes", what does the government intend to do, so as to rectify this situation, by legislation (I am sure that you are aware, that the whole construct, of the 'Extended Sentence'; was different, prior to that date and, in fact, earlier to it, than to what it is now).
If your answer, in terms of intention, is "nothing", why not?
On R v Wiles
A Letter To The Home Office (Part 1)
What Is 'Imprisonment'?
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Re-Balancing The Notification Periods: In Light Of The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
I am sure, that any reasonable person would agree with me, that the excellent work carried out by Lord Dholakia, and his colleagues (leading to the amendments of the ROA 1974 (via LASPOA 2012)), is one small, but, very important, step, in enabling those who have served their debt to society (and more), towards integration as good-standing and productive members of that society. I do have to say, in these days, it is relatively brave and rare, for a government to support such amendments.
Prejudice and persecution, against people, such as myself, are rife, within our communities; that can never be 'a good thing'.
It is now illuminating, to consider the intention of Parliament, when the original Sex Offenders Bill (1996) and Act (1997), were being created:
The Government published its Sex Offenders Bill on 18 December 1996 ... For present purposes, we will focus on Part 1 ... which in turn constituted five clauses, specifying the offenders who will have to register and for how long they will be required to register; describing what information must be supplied and how; making failure to comply with the requirements an offence; outlining the position of young offenders (i.e. under 18 years); and empowering courts to issue certificates stating details of the court hearing. How did the Bill compare to the Consultation Document? First we should note that, although putting forward options, the Consultation Document did contain what might be called the Government's 'preferred options'. These included, firstly, that we did actually have registration requirements, and that their duration should match that of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. (my emphasis). Failure to register was to be an absolute offence and the provisions should not be retrospective; the offence of failing to register would be a summary one. Registration was to be in the locality where the offender lived. The Government wanted access to the information on record to be given to those engaged in child protection activities.
The Bill reflected all of these 'preferred options' (my emphasis), although again had nothing directly to say on the subject of allowing access to registered information. It is true to say that the Government continually held the line on all its preferred options, although some were held more easily than others."
(Thomas, T. (2000), Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, pg. 108-109, Willan).
The arguments, which the present government supported, towards the LASPOA 2012 amendments, are parallel in nature to those considered, during their creation, and are on record, in the usual places.
I need not comment, here, about the continuing, draconian, populist, mission creep, within the notification requirements, which a person in my position suffers. I have stated such, here, and no doubt, will do so again, in the future:
The Creation of Fresh Pariahs
This is particularly irritating, in a personal sense, as it rests only.on Wiles, which I (amongst others) see as per incuriam, in itself. It is galling and offensive, to one such as myself, who presents no more a risk to society, than any man in the street (and never has - quite the opposite, in fact).
So, the question is this; does the government intend to re-balance the notification periods, with those in the LASPOA 2012 amendments and with the original intention of Parliament?
If that answer is "no", why not?
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53 (requires correction, at the time of writing, via Commencement)
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]: Second Reading
Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill
Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Commencement
Do you have any further guidance on (or dates applying to) when the periods, described in Issue 2, are likely to be 'Commenced'?
Regarding the ICPC, I received this email, from your representative:
Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield,
Reference : T14916/12
TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Thank you for your e-mail of 18/10/2012 8:11:07 PM.
The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for Education.
We have therefore transferred your e-mail to DfE, who will arrange for a reply to be sent to you.
Please provide, in as much detail as possible, to whom my request was redirected.
For the record, I do not believe, for one moment, it is the responsibility of the DfE; Do you?
If you believe that any of my requests relate better to The Ministry of Justice, please redirect my email to them, informing me that you have done so and to whom. You may treat this as a request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, if you so desire.
For the record, it is very likely, that these communications will be shared with my local Member of Parliament and, possibly, in later legal action(s). They may, also, be posted online.
A copy of this email is posted at:
... with active hyperlinks, where appropriate.
A copy of this email has been sent to the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, and my PPU, by Royal Mail.
I look forward to your reply, which is preferred, by email.
Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is an important piece of legislation. It is designed to help people with a criminal record get back into work by allowing their record to become ‘spent’ after a period of time, provided they have not reoffended.
Once a record is spent, this means that the person is no longer required to declare their offence to a prospective employer. At this point, as the Act says, they are ‘entitled to be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not been convicted or sentenced’."