The recent release of paedophile John Malcolm White without public notification, without treatment and without parole supervision after only 12 years of an 18-year sentence has understandably raised public concern. There are a number of issues raised in this case that the Coalition for the Protection of Children believes requires addressing:

1, Paedophiles can be held in custody

First and foremost, John Malcolm White, under the existing prison rules, could have been held in custody until the full expiration of his sentence six years from now. Prison rule 32(c)2 gives the Commissioner of Corrections the power to charge an inmate with an offence for not participating in a designated treatment programme. Such an “offence” provides for loss of remission, which could take away the inmate’s “right” to unsupervised release after two thirds of his sentence. In this case, the Parole Board did not release John White; instead, he walked out of the prison door a free man with no parole oversight whatsoever.

While we are strong supporters of restorative justice, refusal to engage in rehabilitative programmes pretty much waives one’s right to leniency. We know from an abundance of research that paedophiles have no hope of returning to a normal life without long and highly specialised treatment and that, just like addicts, they are never totally cured but require continuing therapeutic support well after release.

2, Identities of released paedophiles should be publicly available

The reluctance on the part of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to make available to the general public the names and locations of such released offenders amounts to protecting them at the expense of our children. Provisions exist in law for public notification of information on sex offenders under section 329H(2)(d) of the Criminal Code. This can include notification to the public and identifying information — including a photograph — as the Minister of National Security may determine. The provision has never been used, with the recent exception of the release of White’s photograph by the Premier, as acting Minister of National Security, to The Royal Gazette on November 10. While we are not necessarily advocating such a level of broadcasting, it is essential that the photograph and whereabouts are available to the general public in a central location.

3, Publication of names at the point of charge

As it stands, all people charged with sexual offences have their identities protected — unlike any other category of offence; murder, for example. Additionally, many continue to be protected from having their names published even after conviction if their victims are related to them. Indeed, the only reason that we know John White’s name at all is that his victims were not related to him. We must ask why individuals charged with sexual offences — when the victim cannot be identified by such publication — are so protected. Indeed, this does not have to be the case because, while section 32 9(c)(1) of the Criminal Code prevents any publication of the name of a person so charged, section 329(c)(b) makes an exception to this and allows the judge hearing the case to overrule that clause and allow publication if they believe “that it is in the public interest that the restrictions [on publication] should be removed or relaxed”.

I do not know of any cases in Bermuda in which a judge has taken advantage of this subsection and allowed publication at the point of charge, despite some horrendous cases involving the violent sexual exploitation of children.

The argument can be made that no accused person’s name should be published until actually convicted of a crime. Clearly, that is not the case at the moment, yet those accused of sexual offences receive preferential treatment. Magistrates and judges should be encouraged to take note of this provision, unless, of course, the identity of the victim could be compromised by doing so.

4, The issue of stigmatising the offender

We are aware of the concern in some quarters of the possibility that making the names, and potentially addresses, of sex offenders publicly available would further marginalise them and may even contribute to their likelihood of reoffending. There is no evidence that this is occurring in California, where Megan’s Law is in effect and where this information can be obtained by going to the police station. The Coalition for the Protection of Children is not suggesting that these names and addresses are posted in public areas, as is the case in some American states.

The argument that having the public aware of the names of convicted sex offenders is damaging to the offender’s reputation, and his likelihood of finding employment, must be balanced against the safety of the children in our community.

We at the coalition are strong proponents of the principles of restorative justice. It has been argued in some sectors that publicly naming such an offender breaches the fundamental beliefs inherent in the concept of restorative practice.

This shows a lack of understanding of the tenants of restorative justice whose programmes begin with the acknowledgement of responsibility for the offence by the offender. An offender that maintains their innocence after conviction and refuses to participate in a treatment programme has missed the first and most essential step in the restorative process. Acknowledgement that one has a sickness, and apologising to all of those affected, is not in fact at odds with public recognition, especially if this is coupled with support — as in training we conducted for a programme called Circles of Support and Accountability.

5, Support and accountability is key

The COSA programme embodies the recognition that the best protection that a community can have from a sexual predator is twofold: the healing of that person and close monitoring to ensure that the offender is complying with the conditions of probation or parole. This programme has been very successful in the United States and in Canada, and recent research indicates that offenders involved in the Circle of Support and Accountability have an 85 per cent lower risk of reoffending.

The “support” component of the programme assists the offender in reintegrating into the community and is coupled with an “accountability” component, which monitors the offender daily and ensures that he follows the strict conditions of his parole and avoids the triggers that may lead to reoffending.

6, The concern about minor offences

An additional concern relates to the potential stigmatisation of someone convicted of indecent exposure while skinny dipping on the beach at night, for example. There are a host of similar offences that are technically sexual offences and need not be included in such a list. For that reason, the register should refer only to serious sexual offences. Our primary objective must be the protection of the public from what continues to be a serious threat to our children.

7, Is public access to information about paedophiles effective?

The suggestion has been made that public access to the names and whereabouts of sexual offenders does nothing to protect the public or to reduce the incidence of sexual offences. The most recent data regarding the reports of sexual abuse against children in the US, where this information is readily available to the general public, indicates that the rate of reports of child sex abuse is significantly lower.

Recent data shared by the Department of Child and Family Services indicates that in 2014 there were 173 reports of child sexual abuse. Try to imagine a small town of 65,000 people in the US that received 173 reports of child sexual abuse in one year. One can only imagine the shock and horror that such a situation would evoke; more so when you bear in mind that only a very small portion of these crimes ever get reported.

This has to be viewed as a national crisis. The majority of the population of Bermuda is supportive of these recommendations. It is beyond me why we continue to sacrifice the safety and security of our children. It is better to offend an adult than to sacrifice a child.

8, Improved investigation and prosecution of sexual offences against children

According to a report from the Inter-Agency Committee for Children, titled the “Assessment of the Situation of Children in Bermuda”, more than 60 per cent of the cases it reviewed never went to court and, in most of those cases, it was because the child in question was either unable or unwilling to give evidence.

The typical scenario in cases such as this is that while the child may tell their mother or primary caregiver what happened, they refuse to describe this to the police when interviewed. This results in a case referred to as “unsubstantiated”, and never moves forward. One can imagine why a child would have a problem talking about such a delicate issue in front of strangers, with whom they have no relationship.

In Canada, this situation has been remedied through the Ontario Court of Appeal, in what is referred to as the Khan Decision. This decision allows for an exception to the hearsay rule allowing someone whom the child has trusted to testify on their behalf.

We have seen countless sexual abuse cases throughout the 25 years that we have been supporting child victims. More than half of the cases have never proceeded to court for this reason. It is within the purview of our Bermudian courts to consider this decision and to allow testimony from a caregiver in cases such as this, but the decision has never been referenced.

Further, although the law provides for the use of videotaped evidence by children, this facility is never used in Bermuda courts, which results in children being required to tell their story several times and finally give evidence in the same room as the accused. Additionally, they are subjected to sometimes very stressful and often unfair badgering by defence lawyers in a courtroom where they often have to face the accused.

9, Legislative changes required

In most jurisdictions, including Canada, the US and Britain, provision exists for mandatory parole supervision of serious sexual or violent offenders. These individuals, once designated by the courts, can be subjected to supervision after release for life. This may seem draconian, but in the case of sexual perpetrators such as White only consistent supervision, coupled with specialised treatment, would reduce the very real risk of him reoffending. It is well known that these offenders opt to wait for release at two thirds of their sentence rather than applying for parole, primarily to avoid this type of supervision. Therefore, we propose that dangerous offender legislation be enacted to provide for lifelong supervision in such cases.

Summary of recommendations:

i, Use prison rules to prevent the release of sexual offenders refusing treatment after two thirds of their sentence

ii, Make information available regarding the release of sexual offenders: their identities and their locations. This information should be kept in Hamilton Police Station and made available to members of the public for scrutiny

iii, Establish a COSA programme for released sex offenders

iv, Remove the requirement for registry of very minor offences

v, Adopt, in legislation, the Khan Decision, allowing a caregiver or individual close to the child to give evidence as to what the child disclosed

vi, Establish “dangerous offender” legislation requiring dangerous sexual offenders to remain on parole for an extended period of time

vii, Ensure that sexual offenders who are deemed unsuitable for group counselling are provided with individual treatment

• Sheelagh Cooper is the chairwoman of the Coalition for the Protection of Children. More information about the CPC legislative and policy agenda can be found at www.coalition.bm