In the United Kingdom, people convicted of sexual offenses are barred from taking any form of employment that involves contact with minors as a result of checks and restrictions that guarantees the safety of children.
The stringent control mechanism in place domestically is deeply flawed and sometimes non existent to prevent convicted sex offenders from moving overseas and taking roles in charities and educational institutions where they can easily exploit and abuse vulnerable children.
Over the years, the number of individuals leaving the UK and regarded as posing a risk of sexual harm to children has been consistent, although there is a lack of numerical evidence to quantify the actual extent of child abuse overseas by UK nationals.
The United Kingdom currently has three legislative frameworks in place aimed at reducing the risk of sexual abuse and exploitation of children overseas by UK nationals.
Civil Orders:
Civil orders were introduced in May 2004 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with the aim to restrict foreign travels. Originally, a foreign travel order (FTO) could be imposed after a conviction for a sex offense against a child (I.e rape, sexual harassment, possession of indecent images of children etc.). However, in 2012 a review by the Association of Police Officers labeled the FTOs as “deeply flawed” and an “unnecessary and unreasonable obstruction to the objective of preventing sexual abuse of children in vulnerable jurisdictions”. Following an amendment, from March 2015 FTOs were replaced by two new orders: (1) a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) to be issued following a sexual offence conviction and (2) a sexual risk order (SRO) to be issued when the person is proven to have done the act but there has been no conviction.
Both orders are made by the court upon satisfactory evidence that the individual poses a public threat for sexual harm.
SHPO and SRO restricting travel can either apply to any foreign travel or only to travel to certain countries; it has a duration of up to 5 years which can be renewed and the person subject to the order must surrender their passport to a police station until the order ceases to have effect.
Although on paper SHPO and SRO can be considered effective measures, there is a lack of data to demonstrate the frequency of their use. Neither the Home Office nor the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Prosecution Service collect data about the number of orders containing foreign travel restrictions that are imposed. The only publicly available data by 40 police forces show that as of March 2019 only 6 SROs with foreign travel restrictions were in place, furthermore only around 0.2% of the 58637 registered sex offenders in England and Wales on 31st March 2018 had their foreign travel restricted.
These data seem to justify the concern expressed by NGOs such as ECPAT and CRI claiming that FTOs are not made as often as they should given courts’ reluctance to impose them as well as a potentially excessive need for evidence to show either that the underlying sexual behavior had been committed abroad or a specific intent to travel. In addition, foreign travel restrictions are unlikely to be made in cases involving non-contact offending since judges rarely associate it with risk of contact offending.
S72 Prosecution:
The second measure adopted is S72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Generally, individuals can only be prosecuted in England and Wales for alleged offenses committed within the jurisdiction. S72 is an exception to the rule and allows to prosecute UK nationals and residents for alleged child sexual offenses committed overseas.
Although this tool has the potential to bring to justice those individuals who committed crimes in jurisdictions where it would be easier to get away with it, it is rarely applied and there is the belief that it should only be used as a measure of last resort justifying this view with the high costs for coordinating operations internationally and for the distress caused to the victim to face trial in a foreign country.
Disclosure and Barring Service:
The third response to protect overseas children concerns the application of disclosure and barring regimes to enable employers to make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent those who pose a risk to children working with them.
Agencies based in the UK which recruit staff to work with children domestically and internationally are obliged to undertake DBS checks. However, institutions based overseas have no requirement to carry out similar checks to UK nationals before they can work with children.
As they are framed and implemented, the three measures are clearly ineffective in preventing sex offenders to fly overseas and commit the same type of offense. Researching the topic, it is possible to highlight some recommendations to ensure the protection of children outside the UK.
First of all, there is a need for a national plan of action coordinated by the Home Office with all the relevant governmental agencies addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation overseas by UK nationals and residents of England and Wales.
Secondly, the Home Office should bring forward legislation providing for the establishment and maintenance by the National Crime Agency of a list of countries where children are considered to be at high risk of sexual abuse and exploitation from overseas offenders. This list should be kept under regular review.
The list of countries should be made available to the police, and used routinely to help identify whether a person who has been charged with sexual offences against a child poses a risk to children overseas based on their travel history and/or plans. If the person is considered to pose a risk of sexual harm to children overseas, the police should submit an application for a foreign travel restriction order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Thirdly, the geographical reach of the Disclosure and Barring Service scheme should be extended and legislation should be introduce to permit the Disclosure and Barring Service to provide enhanced certificates to UK nationals and residents of England and Wales applying for (i) work or volunteering with UK‐based organisations, where the recruitment decision is taken outside the UK or (ii) work or volunteering with organisations based outside the UK, in each case where the work or volunteering would be a regulated activity if in the UK.
Finally, disclosure and barring should be made mandatory for:
(a) all UK nationals and residents of England and Wales to provide a prospective employer overseas with an enhanced DBS certificate before undertaking work with children overseas which if in the UK would be a regulated activity and
(b) UK government departments and agencies to require their overseas partners to ensure that UK nationals and residents of England and Wales obtain an enhanced DBS certificate before undertaking work with children overseas which if in the UK would be a regulated activity.
thecriminologist.law.blog 