Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences: Report (html)

13. Preventing sexual offending

Overview

• To respond effectively to sexual violence, we need to focus on perpetration.

• An ideal response would stop sexual violence before it happens or stop it continuing.

• We need to intervene early to stop people from offending, in a safe and coordinated way. In future we must consider programs to divert people from the criminal justice system.

• We also need to prevent reoffending. We must support people who have committed sexual offences to return to the community with adequate reintegration programs. We recommend a stronger focus on reintegration in Victoria. There should be a trial of Circles of Support and Accountability.

• The sex offender registration regime does not work effectively. The government should adopt our past recommendations on sex offender registration. Registration of sex offenders needs to be more focused and effective.

Preventing sexual violence must be a part of the picture

13.1 Previous reforms to the justice system, and the way it deals with sexual violence, have often focused on victim survivors and the legal system. They have tried to make reporting easier and going to court less traumatic. But sexual violence is a problem of behaviour. A clear focus on stopping this behaviour is important to an effective justice system response.

13.2 The focus on perpetrator interventions is growing and is now seen as critical to addressing family and sexual violence. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022 recognised that a ‘holistic approach to working with perpetrators’ is important.^[1] In Victoria, the Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions stressed the need to ‘shift the burden away from victim survivors who have had to bear responsibility for action for far too long’.^[2]

13.3 We agree that reforms to the justice system should also focus on:

• interventions to stop sexual violence from happening

• the actions of people who commit sexual violence.

13.4 This new focus might enable people to seek help for their behaviour. This would shift the burden to report from victim survivors. For some victim survivors, having the person responsible for sexual violence go through treatment might be a form of justice.^[3]

13.5 We have been told there is a need for better developed, funded and tailored perpetrator interventions. This feedback came from sexual assault services, criminal justice actors and services supporting people who have offended:

There are numerous examples, around the world, where communities take a more proactive approach to prevention, early intervention, and offender rehabilitation and community reintegration … None of these initiatives, with all the potential community safety benefits they bring, is present here.^[4]

13.6 In this chapter, we propose reforms to support a ‘continuum’ of options for preventing sexual violence—from early intervention to reintegration and sex offender registration.^[5] Victoria needs an approach to sexual violence as comprehensive as the one recommended for family violence by the Royal Commission into Family Violence.^[6]

13.7 Our recommendations reflect our broad focus on responses to offending behaviour. We do not discuss correctional policy and practice in detail, or sentencing.^[7] In Chapter 15, we make recommendations to support people accused of sexual offences to receive a fair trial (for example, by providing them with an intermediary).

What do we know about sexual offending?

13.8 Rates of reporting are low for sexual violence. There are gaps in the data and our picture of sexual offending is incomplete (see Chapters 6 and 7). In short, we do not know how common sexual violence is. Research is largely based on offenders who have had contact with the criminal justice system—but they are just a small fraction of those who perpetrate sexual violence.^[8] We discuss the need for more research on sexual offending in Chapter 6.

13.9 What we do know is that people convicted of sexual offences are diverse. They are different in their behaviour, traits and needs.^[9] They are mostly male and mostly known to their victims (for example, a partner or a parental figure) (see Chapter 2).

13.10 There are many explanations for why people commit sexual offences. These include social causes (for example, gender inequality), individual factors (such as problems with empathy) and the environment the person is in (such as whether there is an opportunity to offend).^[10]

13.11 People who are convicted of sexual offences generally have a low rate of reoffending.^[11] But some are more likely to reoffend than others.^[12]

Early intervention could prevent sexual violence

What is early intervention?

13.12 Early intervention programs support or treat someone who may offend—such as a person who has thought of offending, but has not done so. People can identify themselves as needing help, or other people might identify that they are at risk of offending.

13.13 Early intervention programs are important. Also called ‘secondary prevention’, they may prevent sexual offending before it happens.^[13]

13.14 They are different to diversion (where someone receives support or treatment after they have offended) or primary prevention (which is often about changing attitudes using education).

There was support for early intervention

13.15 We heard support for developing early intervention programs for sexual offending.^[16] The County Court of Victoria told us that ‘the most effective way of addressing sexual offending is by early intervention before the criminal justice system is engaged’.^[17]

13.16 Victoria Legal Aid viewed early intervention programs as a way to prevent sexual offending.^[18] For example, they may address the underlying causes of someone’s offending.^[19]

13.17 Jesuit Social Services strongly called for the establishment of a Stop it Now! program in Australia.^[20] It has funding for a pilot of the program, which will be used to develop supporting materials and guides. The pilot will document the program’s operation and value. We note that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse also endorsed Stop it Now!, proposing it as a model for early intervention services in Australia.^[21]

13.18 Other stakeholders also acknowledged Stop it Now! or Prevention Project Dunkelfeld.^[22]

There are gaps relating to early intervention

There are not enough early treatment services in Victoria

13.19 We heard that there is a lack of treatment options for people who might be worried about sexual offending. Jesuit Social Services explained that ‘[t]here isn’t a suite of activities and that is the problem in this space’.^[23] People may not be able to afford the programs that are in place. There is no government support to access them.^[24]

13.20 Even when a court orders treatment in the community, there are long waiting lists. Victoria Legal Aid told us that this is ‘a missed opportunity for timely intervention to meet the therapeutic needs of this cohort’.^[25] Treatment programs may not be available in regional areas.^[26]

13.21 We also heard that treatment programs (both in the community and in prison) could better:

• address sexual offending alongside other issues that might affect a person’s offending (such as mental health challenges or their own history of trauma)^[27]

• reflect community diversity and be tailored to people’s different needs (see box)^[28]

• respond to the nature of someone’s offending (for example, their use of technology).^[29]

13.22 There was also support for culturally appropriate and Aboriginal community-led interventions.^[30]

Early intervention is an important but ‘underdeveloped’ area

13.23 Early intervention for sexual offending has not received as much attention as interventions after a conviction. McKibbin and Humphreys say that the early intervention agenda is ‘particularly underdeveloped and is in need of more research to support the development of evidence-based strategies’.^[34] They state, for example, that we need to know more about who might be at a risk of perpetrating child sexual abuse and how their behaviour might get worse over time.^[35]

13.24 Research about men’s behaviour change programs highlights the gaps in our knowledge. We do not know enough about how effective these programs are in stopping people using violence and keeping victim survivors safe.^[36] Rodney Vlais, an expert in family violence perpetrator interventions, told us that men’s behaviour change programs need to develop a more comprehensive focus on sexual violence.^[37]

13.25 Evaluations of programs like Stop it Now! and Prevention Project Dunkelfeld in other countries do indicate the value of early intervention programs. Studies suggest that:

• There is demand for these programs—some people can identify their risk of offending and are willing to seek help.^[38]

• People who use the programs might not otherwise be known to authorities.^[39]

• Programs help participants feel as though they can identify and manage risky situations and address problematic beliefs.^[40]

• Programs may break down some of the stigma linked with sexual offending to assist in keeping the community safe.^[41]

We recommend a coordinated approach to sexual offending, including early intervention

13.26 Early intervention programs have a role to play in preventing sexual violence. They could address a wider range of people than criminal justice processes can.

13.27 We do not propose setting up a specific program, because a coordinated approach to preventing sexual offending is needed first. As discussed above, the gaps that need to be addressed include:

• early treatment services

• a stronger knowledge base.

13.28 Any early intervention programs need to be supported by the right services and enough research.

13.29 Early intervention programs should be done safely. We must take a coordinated approach, supported by:

• strong program standards

• risk management

• clear program aims

• strong safety and accountability plans.^[43]

What does a coordinated approach look like?

13.30 In recommending a program of perpetrator interventions for family violence, the Royal Commission into Family Violence proposed a multi-stage process. It was based on building a knowledge base of initiatives and then a coordinated approach to perpetrator interventions. This included:

• identifying key principles

• reviewing minimum service standards

• making services available

• setting up processes for monitoring people’s attendance

• making specific funding available.^[44]

13.31 The approach resulted in significant research outcomes, as well as new standards for men’s behaviour change programs—all of which are relevant to responding to sexual violence (especially in a family violence context).^[45]

13.32 Similarly, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse suggested that early intervention initiatives should be developed as part of a broader strategy to prevent child sexual abuse. Prevention efforts would reflect existing knowledge and draw on research and evaluation to better understand what works.^[46]

13.33 Early intervention initiatives for sexual violence should take a similarly evidence-informed approach. Taking a approach similar to that of the family violence reforms, the Victorian Government should start with building a knowledge base of initiatives, then turn to the design and monitoring of programs. It should identify key principles and standards, and there should be ongoing funding for programs.^[47] The government has already committed funding to perpetrator interventions in the 2021/22 budget, connected to its family violence reform efforts.^[48]

13.34 In this inquiry people told us that early intervention programs need to:

• be victim-centred and protect community and victim safety—for example, by effectively managing people’s risk of offending in ongoing relationships^[49]

• address the accountability of people who commit sexual violence^[50]

• manage effectively people’s risk of offending—for example, through risk assessments, processes for contacting authorities and sometimes longer-term programs^[51]

• be tailored to diverse needs, including of people with cognitive disabilities (see box above)^[52]

• be accessible and affordable.^[53]

13.35 Many of these principles reflect the Headline Standards in the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions, as well as research and practice in treating sex offending. The Standards are part of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children (which brings together work being done across Australia to stop violence against women and children). They are designed to guide states and territories to make sure their social and legal systems work together to address the behaviour of perpetrators.^[54]

13.36 The Standards prioritise:

• women and children’s safety in all perpetrator interventions (Headline Standard 1)

• accountability for using violence (Headline Standard 3)

• risk management, which runs throughout many of the Standards that aim to ‘keep the perpetrator visible to the accountability system’^[55]

• effective approaches to intervention, addressing diverse needs and community-led approaches (Headline Standards 2, 4 and 6).

13.37 The Headline Standards also underscore the need for evidence-informed interventions (Headline Standard 5) delivered by a skilled workforce (Headline Standard 6).

13.38 These principles should inform the coordinated approach to preventing sexual offending. This coordinated approach can be developed as part of the Victorian Government’s broader Sexual Assault Strategy (Chapter 1).

13.39 Once a strong legal, policy and service framework is in place, programs such as Stop It Now! could then operate.^[56] This framework could also enable the development of supports for people who have committed sexual offences who are involved in restorative justice (see Chapter 9).^[57]

Support for diversion for young people and others

What is diversion?

13.40 After someone has committed an offence, diversion programs direct them away from the criminal justice system. Usually they are directed to treatment or rehabilitation programs. After they complete a diversion program, they will not have a criminal record.^[58]

13.41 Diversion programs may help people address the causes of their offending behaviour and reduce their risk of reoffending. They may provide an incentive for people to take responsibility for their offending behaviour, allowing charges to be resolved more quickly and victim survivors to avoid the trial process.^[59]

13.42 In Victoria, there are diversion programs for people under 18 who have been or could be charged with a sexual offence (the Therapeutic Treatment Order framework). While there are general adult diversion programs, these may not address someone’s sexual offending behaviour and are not available to everyone charged with a sexual offence.^[60] The Therapeutic Treatment Order framework specifically addresses harmful sexual behaviour and is available for sexual offences.

People supported extending the Therapeutic Treatment Order regime to others

13.43 The Therapeutic Treatment Order framework for children is widely regarded as a success (see Chapter 8).^[61] In this inquiry some people supported extending this framework to young people up to 21 or 25 years of age.^[62]

13.44 A therapeutic approach would reflect the cognitive development of young people.^[63] The Sentencing Advisory Council recently noted ‘mounting scientific evidence that young adults aged 18 to 25 are developmentally distinct from older adults and should be treated as such by the justice system’.^[64]

13.45 Victoria Legal Aid told us that a therapeutic response may be appropriate for people with a cognitive disability.^[65] We also heard some support for diversion to be available for everyone charged with a sexual offence.^[66]

Diversion for sexual offending has risks

13.46 We do not recommend extending diversion programs to more young people and others. That would be a significant step given the proportion of people who are accused of sexual violence who are young. Between 2010 and 2016, almost one third (28.7 per cent) of alleged offenders for sexual offences were aged 15–24.^[67]

13.47 Diverting 18–25-year-olds could mean that high numbers of people charged with sexual offences would not be tried for them. This could create a false impression that sexual offending by young men is not taken seriously.^[68] Victoria Police and Sexual Assault Services Victoria all noted that sexual violence is a serious harm for which diversion might not be appropriate.^[69]

13.48 Extending the Therapeutic Treatment Order regime to young adults is not straightforward. This framework is managed through the Children’s Court and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). This means that a separate diversionary pathway would be needed. As we discuss in relation to early intervention above, the standards and services for this framework may not yet exist.^[70]

13.49 For these reasons, we do not recommend a new diversionary pathway for sexual offending, although this may be possible in the future with the development of a coordinated approach to preventing sexual offending (see above).^[71]

Better reintegration support could prevent sexual violence

What is reintegration support?

13.50 Reintegration support helps people in prison to re-join (or reintegrate into) the community. It can start before someone is released from prison, as part of their parole or after release. To re-join the community successfully, a person needs a range of supports such as housing, employment and social support.^[72]

13.51 Reintegration support is crucial to ensure people convicted of sexual offences successfully transition back into the community, without offending again.^[73]

13.52 In Victoria there are reintegration programs for serious sex offenders, along with other programs that respond to the needs of particular groups.^[74] These can help people get housing, connect them to treatment programs, and give them training before their release.

Reintegration support needs are not being met

13.53 People who have committed sexual offences have specific needs when they are released into the community. Many have spent long periods in prison. They may have few social networks and experience social stigma. They might need support with housing, independent living skills and to develop social connections.^[77] If these needs are met, they may be less likely to reoffend.^[78]

13.54 But we heard that people’s reintegration needs were not always met:

There is a lack of reintegration programs for people who have sexually offended. These people have different needs to the general offending cohort.^[79]

13.55 The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and Jesuit Social Services told us how important accommodation is, including culturally appropriate accommodation for Aboriginal people.^[80] We also heard about the value of ‘wrap-around support’ to address people’s many needs (such as housing, employment and therapeutic support).^[81]

13.56 We were told that existing programs (such as Reconnect) should be better funded and expanded.^[82] The Reconnect program brings together different community agencies to help people connect with friends and family, get housing, meet their parole conditions and access programs to address issues like drug and alcohol use:^[83]

‘It’s the best support I’ve ever had in my life. When I found out I’d been offered the house it was awesome. It made me cry because I’ve never had so much good support like that.’^[84]

13.57 Tailored support was highlighted as a priority for Aboriginal people, as well as for people with disability or from migrant communities.^[85] The Victorian Government recently announced more funding for Aboriginal community-led diversion and residential programs—for example, Ngarra Jarranounith Place, a residential behaviour change program for Aboriginal men focusing on family violence.^[86]

13.58 People on post-sentence supervision orders were also identified as needing more reintegrative supports that address their complex needs.^[87]

13.59 We also heard that people may not have access to enough rehabilitative programs in custody.^[88] Rehabilitative programs were identified as needing further funding and development.^[89]

We recommend piloting Circles of Support and Accountability

13.60 We recommend piloting Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSAs) to support the reintegration of people who have committed sexual offences.^[90]

13.61 We found support for CoSAs in our inquiry.^[91] People pointed to their capacity to prevent reoffending and to keep the community safe by:

• providing people with a social support system^[92]

• monitoring their behaviour and reporting any concerns^[93]

• helping with their successful reintegration (for example, by helping them to develop independent living skills).^[94]

13.62 Submissions referred to research which indicates that CoSAs prevent reoffending, are cost-effective and receive support from some victim survivors.^[95]

13.63 CoSAs have been positively evaluated. In North America, studies suggest that CoSAs can reduce general and sexual reoffending.^[96] A recent Australian study found that CoSAs can support people to meet their parole conditions, challenge any justifications of offending, provide social support and help people build a new life.^[97] Other research indicates that CoSA participation can contribute to better access to housing, relationships and employment.^[98]

13.64 Implementing CoSAs will be challenging. They require community participation (as community volunteers form the ‘circle’), so people in the community would need to be willing to take part.^[99] Community volunteers would need training. For example, they must understand people’s parole conditions in order to support compliance with those conditions.^[100] In its support for the program, Jesuit Social Services set out principles that can guide any trial of CoSAs, including funding, training, evaluation and service integration (we discuss reform evaluation in Chapter 6).^[101]

The Register of Sex Offenders still needs reform

What is the Register of Sex Offenders?

13.65 In Victoria, people who are sentenced for certain sexual offences against children must be placed on a register when they are released into the community. Other people convicted of sexual offences (including offences against adults) can be placed on this list based on the court’s discretion.^[102]

13.66 In deciding whether to place someone on the register, the court will consider factors such as the person’s risk of sexual reoffending and the burden of the reporting requirements.^[103]

13.67 While on the register, a person must report key personal details to the police, such as their contact information, internet provider and profiles, employment and contact with children. A registered adult must report for at least eight years. They can be required to report for the rest of their life. It is a serious offence to fail to report.^[104]

13.68 The aims of the register are:

• to prevent people from reoffending

• to make it easier to investigate and prosecute someone if they reoffend

• to prevent people who have committed child sexual offences working in child-related employment

• to enable the making of prohibition orders to prevent people from engaging in certain conduct.^[105]

The current register is too broad, inflexible and difficult to manage

13.69 In our inquiry we heard that the Register of Sex Offenders framework in Victoria is:

• inflexible. It is mandatory for people who commit certain offences to be put on the register for lengthy and specific periods. Other similar schemes take a more individualised approach and include regular review.^[106]

• over-inclusive. The mandatory registration of people for lengthy periods has resulted in many people being included in the register, including people who might be at a low risk of re-offending.^[107]

• ineffective. Because the register is too large, it is difficult to monitor and manage. People who do pose a high risk of reoffending may not receive enough supervision.^[108]

• disproportionate. Being on the register involves burdensome reporting requirements and carries social stigma. For people who might be at a low-risk of reoffending, the impact of being on the register might outweigh the risk they pose to the community.^[109] The penalties that someone faces if they breach their reporting obligations—in some cases—might be more serious than their original sentence.^[110]

13.70 There were also concerns that mandatory registration makes it less likely that people will admit responsibility for sexual offending.^[112]

13.71 Liberty Victoria and Victoria Legal Aid stressed that post-sentence measures generally (including post-sentence supervision) should not replace adequate rehabilitation programs in prison and reintegration processes.^[113] These are more appropriate ways to address people’s risk of reoffending. Victoria Police was concerned about the lack of reintegrative and rehabilitative support for people on the register, even though its aim is to prevent reoffending.^[114]

13.72 We also heard that current reporting requirements were broad (especially regarding contact with children). They are not specific to someone’s offending and sometimes complicated to meet, resulting in technical breaches.^[115]

The approach to registering children and young people needs to change

13.73 There was some opposition to the current approach to registering children and young people.^[116] The Children’s Court has discretion to place a child on the register, if the prosecution applies for it.^[117] A young person whose case is heard in an adult jurisdiction is subject to registration (with limited exemptions).^[118] Some submissions considered that sex offender registration was not developmentally appropriate for children and young people.^[119]

Implementing our previous recommendations would address continuing concerns

13.74 The key issues with the Register of Sex Offenders can be addressed by implementing recommendations from our 2012 inquiry (see Table 13).^[121]

Table 13: Improving the Register of Sex Offenders

13.75 These recommendations were designed to strengthen the registration scheme by sharpening its focus. Because the register was over-inclusive, large and expensive, we proposed to limit its use to those most likely to reoffend. We recommended that people’s registration should be based on their risk of reoffending, and that their reporting obligations be tailored to their needs.^[134]

13.76 Our 2012 review and recommendations were highlighted in submissions to this inquiry by the Law Institute of Victoria, Liberty Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association.^[135]

13.77 We received multiple submissions opposing a public register (which would be open to the public to view).^[136] But we are not considering this issue given it is already the focus of a current parliamentary inquiry.^[137] In our previous inquiry, we noted that much of the research has found that making registers publicly available does not reduce the risk of re-offending. It can even have negative outcomes (including stigma and increasing someone’s chance of re-offending).^[138]

1. Commonwealth of Australia, Fourth Action Plan—National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children 2010–2022 (Policy, 2019) 18 <https://www.dss.gov.au/women-publications-articles-reducing-violence/fourth-action-plan>.

   ↑

2. Victorian Government, Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions (Final Report, 2018) 3 <https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2942345725/view>. The Expert Advisory Committee was established following the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence: Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) Recommendation 86 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

   ↑

3. Consultation 23 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria Specialist Children’s Services); Haley Clark, ‘“What Is the Justice System Willing to Offer?” Understanding Sexual Assault Victim/Survivors’ Criminal Justice Needs’ (2010) 85 Family Matters 28, 30.

   ↑

4. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

   ↑

5. Focusing on the value of restorative approaches, the Jesuit Social Services stated that a ‘continuum of responses is critical, including preventative programs and targeted post-sentence/post-prison support services, as well as carefully implemented restorative justice programs’: Submission 24 (Jesuit Social Services).

   ↑

6. See especially Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) Recommendations 85–93 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

   ↑

7. For example, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service made important proposals about Aboriginal Community Justice Reports (which provide the sentencing judge with a more comprehensive account of someone’s background and situation and community-based alternatives) and the Spent Convictions scheme (including that it should not exclude sexual offences and about any waiting periods): Submission 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service). See also Submission 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency) which supports ‘alternative sentencing measures … for Aboriginal peoples with the purpose of addressing underlying disadvantages and traumas caused by colonisation and legacies of child removal policies’.

   ↑

8. Antonia Quadara, ‘The Everydayness of Rape: How Understanding Sexual Assault Perpetration Can Inform Prevention Efforts’ in Nicola Henry and Anastasia Powell (eds), Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014) 41, 42.

   ↑

9. See, eg, Andrew Day, Elli Darwinkel and James Vess, ‘The Characteristics of Registered Sexual Offenders in an Australian Jurisdiction’ (2017) 14(2) Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 120, 1–3; Antonia Quadara et al, Conceptualising the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse (Research Report No 33, Australian Institute of Family Studies (Cth), June 2015) 9–20 <https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptualising-prevention-child-sexual-abuse>; Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Criminal Justice Report (Parts VII to X and Appendices, 2017) 363.

   ↑

10. Antonia Quadara, ‘The Everydayness of Rape: How Understanding Sexual Assault Perpetration Can Inform Prevention Efforts’ in Nicola Henry and Anastasia Powell (eds), Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014) 41, 43, 45, 54.

    ↑

11. Erin Mackay et al, Perpetrator Interventions in Australia: Part One—Literature Review (State of Knowledge Paper Issue PP01, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, November 2015) 37 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/perpetrator-interventions-in-australia/>; Antonia Quadara, ‘The Everydayness of Rape: How Understanding Sexual Assault Perpetration Can Inform Prevention Efforts’ in Nicola Henry and Anastasia Powell (eds), Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014) 41, 55.

    ↑

12. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) [4.45]–[4.47] <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>.

    ↑

13. Commonwealth of Australia, Fourth Action Plan—National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children 2010–2022 (Policy, 2019) 4 <https://www.dss.gov.au/women-publications-articles-reducing-violence/fourth-action-plan>.

    ↑

14. Jesuit Social Services, Stop It Now! A Scoping Study on Implementation in Australia (Report, January 2019) 4–8, 16, 19–20 <https://jss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Stop-It-Now.pdf>. See also Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 93 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

15. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 97–8 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>. There is an associated online treatment program available outside Germany: Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine at the Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Troubled Desire (Web Page, 22 September 2020) <https://troubled-desire.com/en/>.

    ↑

16. See, eg, Submissions 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster), 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 41 (Office of the Public Advocate), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton), 59 (County Court of Victoria), 65 (Aboriginal Justice Caucus), 68 (Victoria Police). Other stakeholders also supported early intervention for children and young people: see, eg, Submissions 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency), 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital).

    ↑

17. Submission 59 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

18. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

19. See, eg, Submission 65 (Aboriginal Justice Caucus).

    ↑

20. Submission 24 (Jesuit Social Services). See generally Jesuit Social Services, Stop It Now! A Scoping Study on Implementation in Australia (Report, January 2019) Recommendations 1–23 <https://jss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Stop-It-Now.pdf>.

    ↑

21. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) Recommendation 6.2(g) <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

22. Submissions 38 (Bravehearts), 59 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

23. Jesuit Social Services in Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services); Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 59 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

24. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 68 (Victoria Police). See also Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) Vol 6, 59 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

25. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid). In terms of treatment programs generally, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria noted ‘there are gaps in terms of what is available’: Consultation 71 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (No 1)).

    ↑

26. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid); Consultation 67 (Loddon Mallee Regional Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee).

    ↑

27. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

28. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 68 (Victoria Police). Victoria Legal Aid also mentioned the value of individualised as well as group approaches to treatment. Victoria Police also highlighted the need for the post-sentence regime to respond more appropriately to diverse needs, including the needs of people with disability.

    ↑

29. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

30. Submissions 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 49 (inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence), 54 (Victorian Multicultural Commission); Consultation 67 (Loddon Mallee Regional Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee).

    ↑

31. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

32. See Consultation 19 (Dr Frank Lambrick); Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 41 (Office of the Public Advocate).

    ↑

33. See Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

34. Gemma McKibbin and Cathy Humphreys, ‘Future Directions in Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: An Australian Perspective’ (2020) 105 Child Abuse & Neglect 1, 5. See also Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 58 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

35. Gemma McKibbin and Cathy Humphreys, ‘Future Directions in Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: An Australian Perspective’ (2020) 105 Child Abuse & Neglect 1, 5–6.

    ↑

36. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Men’s Behaviour Change Programs: Measuring Outcomes and Improving Program Quality: Key Findings and Future Directions (Research to Policy and Practice No 01/2019, 2019) 2 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/mens-behaviour-change-programs-measuring-outcomes-and-improving-program-quality-key-findings-and-future-directions-2/>; Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) vol 3, 273–4 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

    ↑

37. Consultation 18 (Rodney Vlais). On the use of men’s behaviour change programs for sexual violence, see also Consultations 2 (Centre for Innovative Justice) (regarding available supports in restorative justice for people responsible for violence), 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

38. Klaus M Beier et al, ‘The German Dunkelfeld Project: A Pilot Study to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse and the Use of Child Abusive Images’ (2015) 12(2) The Journal of Sexual Medicine 529, 538; Joan Van Horn et al, ‘Stop It Now! A Pilot Study into the Limits and Benefits of a Free Helpline Preventing Child Sexual Abuse’ (2015) 24(8) Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 853, 861; Jesuit Social Services, Stop It Now! A Scoping Study on Implementation in Australia (Report, January 2019) 21 <https://jss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Stop-It-Now.pdf>; Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 94 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

39. Klaus M Beier et al, ‘Encouraging Self-Identified Pedophiles and Hebephiles to Seek Professional Help: First Results of the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD)’ (2009) 33 Child Abuse & Neglect 545, 548; Joan Van Horn et al, ‘Stop It Now! A Pilot Study into the Limits and Benefits of a Free Helpline Preventing Child Sexual Abuse’ (2015) 24(8) Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 853, 861 (in relation to the Dutch program particularly); Jesuit Social Services, Stop It Now! A Scoping Study on Implementation in Australia (Report, January 2019) 21 <https://jss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Stop-It-Now.pdf>.

    ↑

40. Ashley Brown et al, Call to Keep Children Safe from Sexual Abuse: A Study of the Use and Effects of the Stop It Now! UK and Ireland Helpline (NatCen Social Research Report, June 2014) 5, 65 <https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/stop_it_now_evaluation_uk_findings.pdf>; Joan Van Horn et al, ‘Stop It Now! A Pilot Study into the Limits and Benefits of a Free Helpline Preventing Child Sexual Abuse’ (2015) 24(8) Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 853, 864–5.

    ↑

41. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 58, 101 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

42. Consultation 52 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

43. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Men’s Behaviour Change Programs: Measuring Outcomes and Improving Program Quality: Key Findings and Future Directions (Research to Policy and Practice No 01/2019, 2019) 3–7 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/mens-behaviour-change-programs-measuring-outcomes-and-improving-program-quality-key-findings-and-future-directions-2/>.

    ↑

44. See Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) Recommendations 85–92 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

    ↑

45. See, eg, Erin Mackay et al, Perpetrator Interventions in Australia: Part One—Literature Review (State of Knowledge Paper Issue PP01, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, November 2015) <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/perpetrator-interventions-in-australia/>; Erin Mackay et al, Perpetrator Interventions in Australia: Part Two—Perpetrator Pathways and Mapping (Landscapes, State of Knowledge Paper Issue PP01.01, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, November 2015) <http://anrows.org.au/publications/landscapes/perpetrator-interventions-in-australia>; Victorian Government, Expert Advisory Committee on Perpetrator Interventions (Final Report, 2018) <https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2942345725/view>.

    ↑

46. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report (Report, December 2017) vol 6, 101–2 <https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report>.

    ↑

47. See, eg, Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Final Report, March 2016) Recommendations 85–6, 88 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html>.

    ↑

48. ‘Strengthened Perpetrator Interventions’, National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children (Web Page, 11 March 2021) <https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/initiative/strengthened-perpetrator-interventions/>.

    ↑

49. Submissions 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton), 56 (Domestic Violence Victoria).

    ↑

50. Submission 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton). Family Safety Victoria observed that ‘accountability has been important for family violence’, raising the issue of what this might look like in responses to sexual violence: Consultation 73 (Family Safety Victoria (No 1)). See also Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), which refers to interventions that have ‘powers to restrict the offenders’ behaviours’.

    ↑

51. Submissions 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton), 68 (Victoria Police); Consultation 18 (Rodney Vlais).

    ↑

52. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 41 (Office of the Public Advocate); Consultations 19 (Dr Frank Lambrick), 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

53. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

54. See Council of Australian Governments, National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions (Policy, 21 November 2015) <https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/national-outcome-standards-for-perpetrator-interventions/>.

    ↑

55. Ibid 8–9.

    ↑

56. Carolyn Worth and Mary Lancaster also suggested the extension of existing Forensicare and Mensline support to people who are concerned about offending: Submission 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster).

    ↑

57. On the need for supports for people responsible for sexual violence participating in restorative justice programs: see Consultation 2 (Centre for Innovative Justice).

    ↑

58. Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 59.

    ↑

59. An evaluation of the former Cedar Cottage program in New South Wales found that it significantly reduced sexual reoffending by people considered to be ‘low-risk offenders’. The participant could be a biological parent, step-parent or de-facto spouse: Jane Goodman-Delahunty, The NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders (Child Sexual Assault) Program: An Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes (Report, 2009) 5, 8, 9–10 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298788143_The_NSW_Pre-trial_Diversion_of_Offenders_Child_Sexual_Assault_Program_An_evaluation_of_treatment_outcomes>. See also Jane Goodman-Delahunty and Kate O’Brien, Australian Institute of Criminology (Cth), Parental Sexual Offending: Managing Risk through Diversion (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice Report No 482, September 2014) <https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi482>.

    ↑

60. For example, both the Criminal Justice Diversion program and the Court Integrated Services Program (which focuses on supporting people on bail) work in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria: ‘Diversion: A Way for Low-Level Offenders to Avoid a Criminal Record by Undertaking Conditions That Benefit the Victim, the Community and Themselves’, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Web Page, 16 March 2020) <https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/find-support/diversion>; ‘Bail Support (CISP)’, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Web Page, 4 July 2019) <https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/find-support/bail-support-cisp>.

    ↑

61. Submissions 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster), 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton); Consultation 61 (Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

62. Submissions 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 57 (Commission for Children and Young People (Vic)).

    ↑

63. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

64. Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic), Rethinking Sentencing for Young Adult Offenders (Report, 2019) xii <https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/Rethinking_Sentencing_for_Young_Adult_Offenders.pdf>.

    ↑

65. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

66. Ibid (for ‘low level’ sexual offending specifically); Submission 40 (Law Institute of Victoria); Consultation 52 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service). Victoria Legal Aid also proposed making existing diversionary options in the Magistrates’ Court more accessible, by removing the requirement for the police to consent to diversion. The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria was interested in ‘additional sentencing options that would require offenders to engage in treatment designed to reduce their risk of re-offending and promote community safety’: Consultation 71 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (No 1)). Sexual Assault Services Victoria supported exploring further diversion options for people over 18: Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

67. ‘Spotlight: Sexual Offences’, Crime Statistics Agency Victoria (Web Page, 2017) <https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/historical-crime-data/year-ending-31-december-2016/spotlight-sexual-offences>. Of these people, 16.4% were aged 15–19 and 12.4% were aged 20–24.

    ↑

68. Consultation 84 (Aboriginal Justice Caucus).

    ↑

69. Submission 68 (Victoria Police); Consultation 89 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria (No 2)).

    ↑

70. The lack of these conditions may also complicate the use of existing diversion programs.

    ↑

71. In relation to people with cognitive disabilities, Victoria Legal Aid also suggested using existing civil orders under the Disability Act 2006 (Vic) and Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic), which should also be considered: Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

72. Complex Adult Victim Sex Offender Management Review Panel, Advice on the Legislative and Governance Models under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic) (Report, November 2015) [5.183] <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/corrections-prisons-and-parole/review-of-post-sentence-supervision-scheme-for>; Elena Campbell, Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT University, Integrating the Indefensible—What Role Should the Community Play? (Issues Paper, December 2017) 6 <https://cij.org.au/research-projects/integrating-the-indefensible-what-role-should-the-community-play/>.

    ↑

73. Submissions 38 (Bravehearts), 53 (Liberty Victoria).

    ↑

74. See, eg, reintegration programs for young people, women and Aboriginal women mentioned in Department of Justice and Community Safety (Vic), Annual Report 2019–2020 (Report, 2020) 11, 20–1 <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/annual-reports/annual-report-2019-20>. See also ‘ReConnect’, Jesuit Social Services (Web Page, 2021) <https://jss.org.au/what-we-do/justice-and-crime-prevention/reconnect/>; Victorian Government, ‘Transitional Programs’, Corrections, Prisons and Parole (Web Page, 18 March 2021) <https://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/release/transitional-programs>.

    ↑

75. Kelly Richards, Jodi Death and Kieran McCartan, Community-Based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration (Research Report No 7, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, March 2020) 15–16 <https://www.anrows.org.au/project/community-based-approaches-to-sexual-offender-reintegration/>.

    ↑

76. Stacey Hannem and Michael Petrunik, ‘Circles of Support and Accountability: A Community Justice Initiative for the Reintegration of High Risk Sex Offenders’ (2007) 10(2) Contemporary Justice Review 153, 153; Submission 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al); Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

77. Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

78. Kelly Richards, Jodi Death and Kieran McCartan, Community-Based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration (Research Report No 7, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, March 2020) 14, 21–2 <https://www.anrows.org.au/project/community-based-approaches-to-sexual-offender-reintegration/>.

    ↑

79. Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services). See also Submission 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria).

    ↑

80. Submissions 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

81. Submissions 10 (Carolyn Worth AM and Mary Lancaster), 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 24 (Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

82. Submissions 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

    ↑

83. Submission 24 (Jesuit Social Services); ‘ReConnect’, Jesuit Social Services (Web Page, 2021) <https://jss.org.au/what-we-do/justice-and-crime-prevention/reconnect/>.

    ↑

84. Service user cited in Submission 24 (Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

85. In relation to Aboriginal people who have offended, cultural mentoring and healing programs were discussed: Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 21 (Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency). People with disability, for example, can face barriers to accessing mainstream disability support and forensic disability services: Submission 68 (Victoria Police); Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

86. Premier of Victoria, ‘Better Outcomes for Victims and Young People’ (Media Release, 20 May 2021) <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/better-outcomes-victims-and-young-people>; Victorian Government, Creating Jobs, Caring for Victorians (Budget Paper No 3, May 2021) 6.

    ↑

87. Submissions 59 (County Court of Victoria) (on treatment, case management and housing needs), 68 (Victoria Police) (on the need to be supported when transitioning off the orders). Submissions also commented more generally on the desirability and operation of the post-sentence framework: see, eg, Submissions 38 (Bravehearts), 53 (Liberty Victoria), 68 (Victoria Police).

    ↑

88. Problems can include people not having access to treatment at the start of longer sentences; people’s engagement with services being compromised when they are moved between prisons; or services not being available at the prison where they are detained: Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid); Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

89. Submission 68 (Victoria Police). Liberty Victoria highlighted justice reinvestment approaches: Submission 53 (Liberty Victoria).

    ↑

90. A trial might build on the Support and Awareness Groups run with Corrections Victoria: see Lorana Bartels, Jamie Walvisch and Kelly Richards, ‘More, Longer, Tougher … or Is It Finally Time for a Different Approach to the Post-Sentence Management of Sex Offenders in Australia?’ [2019] 43(1) Criminal Law Journal 41, 55–6.

    ↑

91. Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital), 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 38 (Bravehearts), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

92. Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital) (in relation to children and young people specifically), 24 (Jesuit Social Services).

    ↑

93. Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

94. Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 24 (Jesuit Social Services), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton).

    ↑

95. Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 38 (Bravehearts). See also Kelly Richards, Jodi Death and Kieran McCartan, Community-Based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration (Research Report No 7, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, March 2020) 21 <https://www.anrows.org.au/project/community-based-approaches-to-sexual-offender-reintegration/>.

    ↑

96. Grant Duwe, ‘Can Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) Significantly Reduce Sexual Recidivism? Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Minnesota’ (2018) 14 Journal of Experimental Criminology 463, 479; Erin Mackay et al, Perpetrator Interventions in Australia: Part One—Literature Review (State of Knowledge Paper Issue PP01, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, November 2015) 40 <https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/perpetrator-interventions-in-australia/>; Submission 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al).

    ↑

97. Kelly Richards, Jodi Death and Kieran McCartan, Community-Based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration (Research Report No 7, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, March 2020) 68 <https://www.anrows.org.au/project/community-based-approaches-to-sexual-offender-reintegration/>.

    ↑

98. Ibid 21–2; Andrew Bates et al, ‘Ever-Increasing Circles: A Descriptive Study of Hampshire and Thames Valley Circles of Support and Accountability 2002–09’ (2012) 18(3) Journal of Sexual Aggression 355, 358–9. Although both articles note that the studies did not involve control groups.

    ↑

99. Grant Duwe, ‘Can Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) Significantly Reduce Sexual Recidivism? Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Minnesota’ (2018) 14 Journal of Experimental Criminology 463, 479–80. Supporting people who have committed sexual offences ‘can be at odds with the public’s perception of sex offenders’: ibid 480.

    ↑

100. Kelly Richards, Jodi Death and Kieran McCartan, Community-Based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration (Research Report No 7, ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, March 2020) 68 <https://www.anrows.org.au/project/community-based-approaches-to-sexual-offender-reintegration/>.

     ↑

101. Submission 24 (Jesuit Social Services). For a discussion on the difficulties of confirming the efficacy of CoSAs in reducing reoffending: see Grant Duwe, ‘Can Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) Significantly Reduce Sexual Recidivism? Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Minnesota’ (2018) 14 Journal of Experimental Criminology 463, 480–1.

     ↑

102. Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) ss 6–7, 11, sch 1–2. There are a few limited exceptions: ss 6(2A)–(2B), 6(4)–(6). Sections 6(A)–(2B) relate to registration exemption orders, which can be applied for by someone who was 18 or 19 years old at the time of the offending in certain circumstances: ss 11A–B.

     ↑

103. See Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) s 11(3); Judicial College of Victoria, Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Guide, 13 February 2019) 6–7 <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/Sex%20Offenders%20Registration%20Act%20Guide.pdf>. See also Bowden v The Queen [2013] VSCA 382, [40]–[42], (2013) 44 VR 229.

     ↑

104. Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) ss 14, 16–17 (on details to report); ss 34–35 (on duration of order for adults and children);
     
     s 46 (on failure to report).

     ↑

105. Ibid s 1. Another aim is also to empower the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to monitor compliance with this Act.

     ↑

106. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 53 (Liberty Victoria), 59 (County Court of Victoria). For example, the County Court highlighted that the court has to consider the risk an individual person poses before making a supervision order: Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) s 14.

     ↑

107. Submissions 16 (Owen Ormerod), 44 (Dr Patrick Tidmarsh and Dr Gemma Hamilton), 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

108. A 2019 review of Victoria Police’s management of people on the Sex Offender Register found that ‘Victoria Police cannot be assured that all its units are best managing the risks these offenders pose, beyond the minimum legislated compliance requirements’. This review made recommendations about appropriate resourcing of the register, training needs, reporting and evaluating performance: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Managing Registered Sex Offenders (Independent Assurance Report No 1, 28 August 2019) 7, Recommendations 1–9 <https://audit.vic.gov.au/report/managing-registered-sex-offenders>.

     ↑

109. Submissions 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

110. Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid). Liberty Victoria also highlighted the significant penalties for breaching post-sentence supervision orders: Submission 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

111. Submission 46 (Name withheld).

     ↑

112. Submissions 47 (Criminal Bar Association), 59 (County Court of Victoria); Consultation 26 (Greg Byrne PSM, Legal Policy Consultant, Greg Byrne Law). Victoria Legal Aid also raised this concern regarding post-sentence supervision: Submission 27 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

113. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

114. Submission 68 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

115. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 53 (Liberty Victoria); Consultation 39 (Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Jesuit Social Services). Liberty Victoria strongly agreed with our previous recommendations about integrating Part 5 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) into the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic): Submission 53 (Liberty Victoria); Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) Recommendation 2 <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service supported amending the Working with Children Check framework to enable a select category of young people convicted of sexual offences to have their applications considered, on the basis of a risk assessment: Submission 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

116. Submissions 17 (Sexual Assault Services Victoria), 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 59 (County Court of Victoria), 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

117. Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) s 11.

     ↑

118. For example, someone who is 18 or 19 years old at the time of the offending can also apply for a registration exemption order: ibid ss 11A–B.

     ↑

119. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 59 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

120. Submission 46 (Name withheld).

     ↑

121. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>.

     ↑

122. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 47 (Criminal Bar Association), 53 (Liberty Victoria), 59 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

123. Submissions 16 (Owen Ormerod), 40 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

124. Our report recommended a revision of the character and categorisation of registrable offences included in the sex offender registration scheme: Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) 68–72 [5.62]–[5.73], Recommendations 5–7 <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>. The categories only cover sexual offences against children and broadly reflect the nature of the harm that could result from reoffending: ibid [5.77], Appendix D.

     ↑

125. Submission 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

126. Submissions 16 (Owen Ormerod), 53 (Liberty Victoria).

     ↑

127. Submissions 16 (Owen Ormerod), 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 59 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

128. Submissions 27 (Victoria Legal Aid), 67 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

129. Submissions 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 59 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

130. Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) ss 11A–B.

     ↑

131. See Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) 73 [5.101] <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>. Our recommendation also has the requirement that the conduct would not constitute an offence but for the age of the parties involved: ibid Recommendation 8.

     ↑

132. Submission 68 (Victoria Police). Victoria Police observed that people at a high risk of reoffending may benefit from coordinated, multi-agency rehabilitative support.

     ↑

133. We also recommended that the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) should outline the way it seeks to achieve the revised purpose [to protect children against sexual abuse], including by ‘supporting the rehabilitation of those registered sex offenders who seek assistance’: Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) Recommendation 3(f) <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>.

     ↑

134. Ibid xii–xv [23]–[54], chs 5, 6.

     ↑

135. Submissions 40 (Law Institute of Victoria), 47 (Criminal Bar Association), 53 (Liberty Victoria). See also Submission 16 (Owen Ormerod).

     ↑

136. See, eg, Submissions 4 (Associate Professor Kelly Richards et al), 14 (Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital) (in relation specifically to people who were minors when they committed the offence). See also Submission 68 (Victoria Police). The County Court of Victoria also said that protecting the identity of people on post-sentence supervision orders was crucial, particularly for people with lived experience of mental illness: Submission 59 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

137. Parliament of Victoria, ‘Inquiry into Management of Child Sex Offender Information’, Committees (Web Page, 25 August 2020) <https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lsic-lc/article/4323>.

     ↑

138. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sex Offenders Registration (Report No 23, April 2012) Appendix F [1.16], [1.19]–[1.20] <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/project/sex-offenders-registration/>.

     ↑