Liberty lawyer Shami Chakrabarti says:

"The White Paper includes several welcome measures and some that raise concern. But perhaps the greatest danger is that in the pressure on Government to 'get tough' on very specific offences, we lose sight of the best ways to make all our children safer.

"We must not focus only on having the "toughest child protection laws" in the world: we must have the best child protection. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Extending paedophile offences:
grooming etc
People can already be arrested for conspiring, attempting, or inciting others to commit a paedophile offence. The danger is that a law going further would mean prosecuting people not for anything they've done but for things someone thinks they might do - because someone is second-guessing their thoughts.

If you make people afraid that talking to your neighbour's children could be seen as a paedophile offence, you actually make those children less safe. Neighbours and communities are important to keeping our children safe - both from abuse by strangers and, sadly, from the far greater risk of abuse in their own homes.

In terms of 'internet grooming', simply, the police will almost never come across this information. That's why it's so important for parents to be vigilant on behalf of their children.

'Sexual activity with children' offence
The sexual activity with children offence has the potential to close a dangerous loophole in the law. We welcome the intention but urge the Government to ensure this offence is carefully defined: we await more detailed proposals.


Rape trials - the honest belief defence
The honest belief defence in rape can justifiably be moved to require a "reasonable, honest belief" - but the definition of reasonable must itself stay within the bounds of reason.

Creating a tick-box checklist of "all reasonable steps" before sex obviously bears no relation to reality; but a sensible requirement for honest and reasonable belief in consent would help ensure that everyone knows what constitutes rape. it would thus also help ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent acquitted.


Annual re-registering on the sex offences register
We have no problem with this proposal; but it does highlight the fact that the Register needs drastic reform. Only a fraction of the 18,500 names currently on it pose a real threat to children or the wider public. The Register should be cleared of (for example) people involved in consensual gay sex, so that the Register is properly focussed on people who pose a real danger, and so the authorities who use the Register and monitor those on it can concentrate on real dangers.

Registration should be by order of a judge at the time of sentencing: the judge should decide whether or not the offender is a risk and only if they are should they be put on the register. The judge knows the details of the case, of any previous convictions, will have any psychiatric and other reports etc, and so is the person best placed to make this vital assessment.

This approach would protect those who pose no risk from being on the register, and ensure that precious police resources are targeted at those who are most dangerous.

Other measures - summary
We also welcome plans:
- to ensure equality in the laws between homosexual and heterosexual sex, which are long overdue.
- to target people who exploit child prostitutes. The measure needs to be drawn to target adults who are living off a child prostitute's earnings (rather than e.g. two 16-year-old runaways).
- to protect people who are cannot possibly give consent (notably with a severe mental illness or learning disability) from sexual abuse
- the new distinction between sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault (by penetration

We are concerned by:
- the proposal to issue sex offenders orders against violent offenders who have committed no sexual offence. There must be a real concern that people will be branded as potential sex offender on the basis of nothing more than a police officer's suspicion.