The High Court yesterday dismissed a challenge by a convicted sex offender to new legislation which requires released sex offenders to notify the Garda of their address and to report any change of address.
The challenge to the constitutionality of some provisions of the Sexual Offenders Act, 2001 was brought by a man who was sentenced to 12 years for the rape of a number of children. The man was jailed in June 1993 for 12 years and released on June 17th last. He is the subject of an order under Part 2 of the Act requiring him to notify the Garda of his address and to report any change of address.
Rejecting his challenge to those provisions, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan concluded that the registration requirements in Part 2 did not constitute a penalty for sexual offences for which the man was convicted in 1993.
Following that finding, she held that the imposition of the requirements under section 7 (2) of the Act could not be inconsistent with a constitutional right under Article 38.1 of the Constitution not to have a penalty imposed which did not exist at the date of the offence.
In a 32-page judgment, she said there had been undisputed evidence that sexual offenders presented a significant risk to society because of their tendency to relapse.
Statistics suggested that the rate of relapse in the year after release from prison was a little higher than later.
There was also a widely held international view that the condition was one which in general could not be cured. As a consequence, it was not appropriate, from a therapeutic point of view, to think in terms of curing but rather risk management of the condition and the putting in place of measures which facilitated personal control and social control.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said there was also further undisputed evidence that from a therapeutic point of view, a commitment to register was at the lowest level of any interventionist programme to prevent relapse.
It had been stated sexual offenders thrived on secrecy and had a propensity to move around. The commitment by an individual to registration might facilitate personal control.
Providing the Garda with knowledge of the person's whereabouts was a first step in social control.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said it was common case between the parties that the 2001 Act itself did not authorise the release to members of the public any information received. It was accepted that the Garda were bound by the Official Secrets Act and the provisions of the Garda code in dealing with such information .