Exclusive: Why not name accused sex offenders?

The Chief Justice has called for a review on rules that provide anonymity to sex offence suspects in court.

Ian Kawaley told the Bermuda Sun the pre-conviction publicity of a defendant’s name might act as a deterrent in some cases.

At present the name of a suspected sex offender can only be published after the defendant either pleads guilty or is found guilty.

The call from the Chief Justice comes as Magistrates in Bermuda are provided with new sentencing guidelines for sex offence cases for the first time to improve consistency and transparency in the process.

Mr Kawaley said: “The question of anonymity of defendants needs to be revisited.

“It is no longer clear that the anonymity benefits the victim in a way it was assumed when the restrictions were brought into force.

“I have heard it said that parents of child victims would in some cases be happy to have the defendants name published once they have been charged.

“It is not entirely a straight forward issue.”

The Chief Justice told the Bermuda Sun: “It is something that should be revisited because for this type of offence publicity before conviction could well be something of a deterrent.

“Offenders are often otherwise law abiding citizens who might be more influenced by public disapproval than other categories of offenders.

“It also has to be taken into consideration that many offenders in this area are people who are acting under a strong compulsion because they were victims themselves.

“As a result deterrence is a very difficult to achieve. 

“The rationale for anonymity of defendants before conviction was to protect victims.

“We must ensure and monitor that that anonymity is not in fact helping defendants more than it is assisting the victim.” 

New guidelines for magistrates

Magistrates, for the first time, have been provided with sentencing guidelines to deal with sex offence cases.

The guidelines are designed to improve consistency and public perceptions about the way sex offenders are sentenced.

The move follows a number of cases in which the public, as well as victims’ families, have voiced outrage at the perceived ‘lenient’ sentences given to those convicted of sex crimes.

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley told us the guidelines were brought in at the beginning of December.

He added: “This attempts to distill, primarily from English case law, the principles that the courts should normally follow in sentencing in sex offence cases.

“The purpose is to promote greater consistency and clarify the basis for the sentence in an area in which, at Magistrate’s Court especially, it is difficult to find precedent overseas.

The goal is clarity

“Our Magistrates have a large sentencing sphere and it has been very difficult to develop sentencing principles. I’m hopeful these guidelines, which are based on the ones used in England and Wales, will help create clarity both for sentencing Magistrates and members of the public.

“And I would hope that unless there is good reason for departing from them, regard would be had to them.”

The new guidelines are contained in a 16-page document that has been provided to all Magistrates.

They look at a range of sex offences as well as mitigating and aggravating factors that should be considered by the judge.

And they consist of a table where sentencing ranges and starting points are recommended for different kinds of offences.

The Chief Justice added: “The guidelines are a coherent framework in an area which is of great public concern. It’s not always easy to explain in a way the public can understand what sentencing principles are taken into account, but this document which is available to the public should help.”