Sex Offenders Registry Bill
5 August 2003
Attorney-General
LEGAL ADVICE
SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRY BILL:
CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990
Introduction
- We have considered the Sex Offenders Registry Bill, a Member's Bill in the name of
Deborah Coddington MP, for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
This Bill was introduced to the House on 6 March 2003 and was read for the first time on
Wednesday 30 July 2003.
- In our view, the Bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act.
Overview of the Bill
- The Sex Offenders Registry Bill would establish a registry of offenders who have
committed an offence under sections 128 to 144C of the Crimes Act 1961. That registry
would contain the name(s) used by the offender, his or her address, date of birth, the
offences (or alleged offences) committed, reference to identifying information held on
the offender and other identifying information prescribed by regulations.
- The registry would not be accessible to the general public (clause 13(1)). The
registry would only be accessible to members or employees of the Police for the purposes
of the Bill (set out in section 3) and law enforcement purposes. The Minister would also
have discretion to authorise other persons to have access to the registry for the
purposes of the Bill and law enforcement purposes (clause 13(2)).
- The purposes of the Bill are stated broadly and include "to reduce sexual
offending ".
- Sex offenders liable to registration are defined in the Bill as those who:
(i) On the day the Bill comes into force, are serving a sentence in respect of an
offence under sections 128 to 144C of the Crimes Act (including individuals who are
appealing their convictions) or are on parole or have been found not guilty of a
sexual offence by reason of insanity and are still being held under the Mental Health
(Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; and
ii) On or after the date on which the Bill comes into force, are convicted of
committing a sexual offence, or are found not guilty of a sexual offence by reason of
insanity, or are cautioned by a member of the police in respect of a sexual offence
which, at the time when the caution is given, the person admits.
- The information recorded on a sex offender must be maintained either for the life of
that person or for a minimum of 10 years depending on the nature of the offence and
whether or not they are a repeat offender (clause 11).
- Clause 9 of the Bill requires a sex offender who resides in the community to notify
the Police of any changes to his or her name or address within 14 days of the change. If
the person is imprisoned, detained or being treated in an institution, the institution
must notify the Police within 14 days of the person's release date the last known home
address for the person, the home address of the person upon release (if known) and any
names the person may use. The person is able to view the record and ask for information
to be corrected (clause 12). There is no power to remove a person's name from the
registry (except where they have been wrongly included) unless that person has been
pardoned.
Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act: The right to freedom of expression
- We have considered whether clause 9(1) of the Bill raises an issue in relation to
section 14 (freedom of expression) of the Bill of Rights Act. Clause 9(1) requires a
person whose details are entered onto the register to notify the Police of any other
names by which they are known, their home address and any change in address. Clause 10
of the Bill then makes it an offence not to notify the Police of any such change of
address or name within 14 days.
- We consider that this provision is not inconsistent with the right to freedom of
expression. We acknowledge that the right to freedom of expression, as protected by
section 14, includes the right to say nothing or the right not to say certain things. We
also acknowledge the decision of the High Court in Duff v Communicado Ltd that
freedom of expression under section 14 should generally be defined widely and question
of limits on the right should generally be determined pursuant to section 5 (justified
limitations in a free and democratic society). However, we do not consider that a
statement of an individual's name and address is sufficiently expressive so as to
attract the protection afforded by section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.
- The requirements of clause 9(1) do not compel any individual to disclose any opinion
they hold, or to state any matter that they do not believe to be true. We note, in
particular, Canadian judicial decisions holding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms does not require the elimination of "minuscule" constitutional
burdens, and legislative action that increases the costs of exercising a right should
not be invalidated if the burden is "trivial".
- In addition, we note (while acknowledging the minor differences between section 14
of the Bill of Rights Act and section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter) the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Irwin Toy Limited that ""expression"
has both a content and a form, and the two can be inextricably connected. Activity is
expressive if it attempts to convey meaning. That meaning is its content." Here, a
requirement to provide your name and address details does not appear to be sufficiently
"expressive" in content to attract the protection of section 14. Rather, name
and address information can be described as factual and descriptive in nature as opposed
to expressive or representative of expressive content.
- In reaching this conclusion, we note the decision in Regina v Holman that
held that a person's right to freedom of expression was not infringed by being required
to complete a census form.
- Even if provision of this information could be said to attract the protection of
section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act, we consider the nature and extent of any
inconsistency is such that, having regard to the Bill's objectives, it would be
"justified" in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.
Other issues
- The sex offenders register will include the names and addresses of any person who is
cautioned by the Police provided, at the time of the caution, they admitted that
they had committed the offence (see clause 5(b)(iii)). We understand that this aspect of
the Bill is based in part on similar provisions in the United Kingdom Sex Offenders Act.
In the UK, cautions are a formal mechanism with a statutory basis. Cautions must be
certified for the purposes of the UK Sex Offenders Act. By way of contrast, Police
cautions or warnings in New Zealand are given informally. The administering of a caution
is not always recorded and the Bill provides no mechanism to monitor the use of
cautions.
- We have considered clause 5(b)(iii) for consistency with section 25(c) - the right
to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law - and 27(1) - the
principles of natural justice - of the Bill of Rights Act. However, we have come to the
conclusion that neither right arises under this provision. Section 25(c) only applies
where a person has been charged with an offence, and 27(1) does not apply in this case
because a Police officer does not make a "determination" for the purposes of
this provision.
- Any person, who has admitted an offence when given a Police caution, has a limited
right to later challenge the inclusion of their details in the Register. Clause 12 of
the Bill enables an offender whose name is on the registry to request that the
responsible Minister correct any information. In deciding whether or not to correct
(including remove) the information the Minister would be making a determination and so
section 27(1) would apply and the Minister would therefore be required to act in
accordance with the principles of natural justice when decided whether any information
was incorrect. If the person was correctly included on the registry (i.e was cautioned
for an offence and admitted the offence) then their name would remain on the register.
Conclusion
- We have concluded that the Bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of
Rights Act. In accordance with your instructions, we attach a copy of this opinion for
referral to the Minister of Justice. A copy is also attached for referral to Deborah
Coddington MP, if you agree.
Val Sim
Chief Legal Counsel
Bill of Rights/Human Rights Team |
Allison Bennett
Principal Legal Adviser |
cc Minister of Justice
Deborah Coddington MP
Copy for your information
In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this website, please note
the following: This advice was prepared to assist the Attorney-General to determine
whether a report should be made to Parliament under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990 in relation to the Sex Offenders Registry Bill. It should not be used or acted
upon for any other purpose. The advice does no more than assess whether the Bill complies
with the minimum guarantees contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The release
of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all
aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional
privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure
that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the
Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any
liability for any errors or omissions.