LOUDOUN TRUST
SYMPOSIUM NOVEMBER 12th 2015
“Mandatory Reporting”
A Loudoun Trust Commentary.
(This summary is of the views of some thirty persons with
expert knowledge in the area of child sex abuse.)
In general the
symposium spent some time considering whether there was a genuine need for
something to be done about the reporting of child sex abuse. There was an
overwhelming opinion that something needed to be done. Several participants
outlined distressing cases from their experience. One remarked on the
difficulties within the present system when there had to be a balance struck
between the potential pain to the victim and taking action against the
perpetrator. There was discussion
about whether mandatory reporting was the real question for the symposium – or
whether discussion to cover all areas of child sex abuse. Everyone agreed that
there was a problem that needed to be solved and restriction of the discussion
to a single topic was not the best way forward. Areas for discussion
were listed. Beyond mandatory reporting, resources was perhaps the most
commonly discussed subject. Some victims, it was
said, could not report abuse because they could not find anyone to report to.
There were other
aspects of failure – effectively “passing the buck”, or complacency. Perhaps
worse was institutional cover-up. It was said that some people feel that child
sex abuse is something to hide – not something to bring out into the open.
Furthermore, such
allegations within a school could cause the school to fall in the league tables
– this had reputational and financial consequences, particularly to private
schools. Most agreed that that
prevention of child sex abuse and the protection of our children is the key to
success in this area and that this should be the main focus of the discussion. GUIDELINES
Discussion began with consideration of the
guidelines issued by the General Medical Council regarding the reporting of
suspected child sex abuse. The guidelines outline a system in which the
physician must carefully weigh the possible harm to a third party, must consult
with a colleague and then keep the decision under review – writing down the
rationale for the decision, in particular with regard to risk assessment.
Several members considered this to be a good
system.
However, one member saw advantages of
mandatory reporting to supplement this, for she thought the situation at the
moment was far too confusing. She was of the opinion that many psychiatrists and
other professionals have high standards – but there was poor practice as well.
With such people the GMC guidelines were not enough.
Some claimed that many members in the
professions were not clear about the GMC guidelines. One reason was that the
guidelines actually clash with practical experience in the workplace – and that
people do not therefore adhere to the guidelines. Better training was needed.
Other clinicians did not like the guidelines
because they are forced by them to rely upon their own judgement. This means
that they are therefore subject later, in perhaps more calm or settled
circumstances, to the opinions and judgments of their peers.
However, it was thought that if there were
better training, the GMC guidelines could be followed and that there was no need
for a change in the law.
One person suggested that some of the wording
in professional guidelines is ambivalent. As an example, he mentioned that much
of the guidelines depended on the meaning of the word “act”.
To illustrate the point, he quoted patients
who may have been looking at the internet for many years, but who never commit
child sex abuse - even though they have long term psychological problems in that
area. Is watching pornography an “act” – or does it only apply to actual contact
with children?
The question of resources was frequently
mentioned- and one contributor thought that this was the main reason why the
guidelines were not working. There could be no in-depth training, because the
budgets were shrinking. However, she added that training itself might not be
enough – because medical staff were already drowning in the amount of training
they needed to do. Too much is demanded of such staff. They never read the
guidelines - even though they are available. She agreed that some words in the
GMC guidelines are ambivalent, or nuanced.
Further, she claimed that doctors could not
quote the guidelines. They concentrate on good medical practice, not on how to
report suspicions of child sex abuse.
There was a general feeling that some
clarification is needed if there is to be adequate discussion on this subject.
An experienced psychiatrist pointed out that
the term “child sex abuse” was relatively new. When he had started his career
the term was unheard of. These days however, the profession was inundated with
such cases. He thought that the profession was going in the right direction to
deal with such cases, but there was always tendency to swing too far in one
direction only to then reverse and swing too far in the other direction. He
thought that the main way forward was to listen more to the children themselves.
A paediatric registrar agreed. She said that
that the guidelines in her profession only used the word “abuse”, not “sex
abuse”. Although she had prosecuted many cases of abuse she wondered how many
cases had been missed because “child sex abuse” was not mentioned.
SUPPORT FOR MANDATORY REPORTING.
There was some support
for universal mandatory reporting as discussed in the Lords in 2014 – i.e. that
everyone should come under the law, but that some areas, such as the medical
profession, might be granted some temporary exemption. One participant
mentioned the DBS, the Disclosure and Barring Service. This is the body which
replaced the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority
in checking the suitability of persons wishing to gain employment. He claimed that the DBS
will take no action on a report from, for example, social services - unless
it has already been reported to the police. He claimed that this ‘link in the
chain’ was quite broken and put children into danger.
He thought that the entire system needs to be
addressed because it is not working. One might conclude that if one wished to
devise a system that would fail, one could not do better than what we have.
He thought that many
around the table might not know the prevalence rate of established cases in
Britain. He said it is a ‘paltry’ five per cent. One area to consider was the
paucity of prosecution of professionals. He added that he was not suggesting
that reports must necessarily go to the police – for there is already a
framework for reporting to the Local Authority Designated Officers. He pointed to research
done in Australia where there is mandatory reporting in one form or another in
the states and territories. He considered that the difference in the degree of
child safety which was introduced by mandatory reporting was quite significant. He said that the number
of reports to various agencies substantially dropped below the numbers in the
period before mandatory reporting. The number of substantiations of reports has
risen, but the number of reports has dropped. This had put less strain on the
resources. A legislator said that
the government’s financial resources meant that all the plans that used
resources were unlikely to succeed – whereas mandatory reporting might succeed
in one sense. She quoted the legislation on FGM - female genital mutilation -
saying that it had drawn attention to the problem and got the message across.
Mandatory reporting of child sex abuse might have a similar effect. A retired police officer
said that he knew of at least five charities which went into schools and
talked about FGM. This was getting the message across on the ground floor.
Such visits had resulted from the FGM legislation.
CONTRARY OPINION.
The question was then put whether mandatory
reporting would mean that people would not seek help. The general feeling was
that such was the case.
A psychiatrist asserted that that there is a
reason for patient-clinician confidentiality. The courts, he said, have often
said that breaching such confidentiality is an important matter. He thought that
the public harm that can be caused by breeching confidentiality is very great.
He said that the harm to the public should be balanced against any benefits that
mandatory reporting might bring. In his opinion, mandatory reporting would it
tip the balance sufficiently to cause harm.
He questioned some of the disruption that
such mandatory reporting might bring to a family. And he added that he thought
that patients might disappear if there were mandatory reporting.
A lady thought that this was a major point
against mandatory reporting. She thought it important that people believe that
they can get help. She thought that if there are indeed a large number of people
who have these tendencies, but never act upon them, it is important that they
can go to seek help.
Another contributor thought that that one of
the advantages of mandatory reporting is that is takes the pressure off children
who are abused. Against this however, he thought that the great problem with
mandatory reporting is that children have no control over what happens to them
under such a system. All control is taken away from them.
One participant said he would like to comment
on evidence that mandatory reporting will increase the number of cases. He
thought that it would not improve the safeguarding of children. The risk would
be that you have less safeguarding because you have a lot of reporting. He
thought we needed more research and numbers before reaching a decision. He said
that latest official research shows that if children are aware that anything
they say will be passed on to children’s services, then they won’t say anything
at all.
However, he thought it interesting to hear
that in Australia, when mandatory reporting was introduced, that the number of
substantiated cases increased. He thought that aspect should be explored. THE SCOPE OF
MANDATORY REPORTING, IF INTRODUCED. Given that mandatory
reporting was being considered, but that few around the table considered it
should be universal, discussion turned to what the scope of any mandatory
reporting might be. In defining scope, one
participant suggested that there were two areas for discussion. The first was
the scope of what they were discussing – i.e. the areas in which mandatory
reporting might be introduced; the second area of discussion would be the
effectiveness of mandatory reporting in those areas.
Another member suggested categories for areas
where mandatory reporting might be introduced. They were
(i) professional bodies,
(ii) institutions dealing with children and
(iii) anyone not in the above who worked with
children.
She said that there was experience in Canada
of mandatory reporting in these three areas, as well as universal reporting.
A psychiatrist pointed
to another aspect of scope – the “paedophilic level” of patients or potential
offenders. She termed some as ‘paedophilic failures’ who were not lifelong
paedophiles. Others have fleeting sexual interests, or might be drawn to child
pornography at times of a mental breakdown - but then recover. Should
mandatory reporting, with all its consequences, apply to them?
She pointed out that paedophilia is not a
crime - it is a mental health disorder. There are people who have long term
paedophilic interests but who never commit child sex abuse.
She thought that rather
than reporting such people, they should be investigated closely because it is
crucial that we understand what it is that drives child sexual abuse.. A psychologist added to
this. She thought there was a misconception that child sexual abuse is always
perpetrated by people who are lifelong paedophiles, predatory, who are simply
looking for an opportunity to re-offend. This is not so. She considered that
this mistake underpins the idea that we must report such people immediately. In
fact, she said, people who work in the field know that there is not a
dichotomous divide between paedophiles and everybody else.
Another contributor, who works with young
people, made an allied point relating to age. She thought that there is a
division - a difference between information coming from a mature person and a
teenager. She thought that there was a greater duty to report with younger
people. The younger the person, usually the greater the protection that is
needed. In her experience, mandatory reporting might help in certain age groups.
She was also of the opinion that there was a
divide between reporting suspicions in a professional context and
mandatory reporting resulting from observation of the consequences of
child sex abuse.
Another contributor thought that we should
take into account real differences between mandatory reporting, which remains
solely within an institution or a special area, and reporting which
leads in the end to criminal proceedings.
Another psychologist
pointed to yet another area of “paedophilic level” – use of the internet.
Should someone who mentions that they are watching internet child pornography be
reported - when actual children are not involved?
Another participant thought it wrong in
principle to be criminalising professionals who had a therapeutic relationship
with a child. The question of the right not to report is different between
children and adults. Adults are allowed in such circumstances to consider if
they are ready for the consequences before a report is made to the police. This
is not so with children, so the clinician must decide what is best for the
child. Of course, she added, if the child is at risk, one should report. – but
that decision is a matter for professional judgement.
A third participant added to this. There was
a question of the length of time that abuse took place. Is there a difference
between a fleeting encounter which is not predicated on emotional psychological
issues? To exemplify this mentioned the situation of a nurse in A&E dealing with
an injured or sick child. Such a nurse might touch a child on parts of the body
which would be classified elsewhere as sexual assault.
Someone else thought that we must take into
account the environment in which society may place young people. She cited the
situation in prisons where a teenage girl might be put in close proximity to a
predatory adult. This was unfair to both.
In summary therefore, the symposium raised
several areas where reporting might be made, and which deserved different
consideration to the others.
Any introduction of mandatory reporting
should take into account
(i)
the environment in which society places children (
hospitals, prisons etc) –where guidelines apply.
(ii) the psychological make-up of the person
to be reported (fleeting encounters etc)
(ii)
whether the report is of a suspicion or an actual
observation.
(iii)
whether a child is actually physically involved
(internet)
These four categories were also affected by
the three divisions of:
(i)
Professional bodies that deal with children.
(ii)
Institutions that look after children
(iii)
Others outside the above two categories.
EXPERIENCE FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
Various members had experience in
other jurisdictions. In addition to the experience of Australia – mentioned
elsewhere - there was experience from Canada and the United States.
Canada
There is universal mandatory reporting over
all Canadian provinces and territories. It applies to everyone – even down to
the person on the street.
A member who had researched the Canadian
system thought it a complete ‘dead letter’. She said that studies have
discovered that there is widespread disregard of the law.
She said that Canadian clinicians in general
decide that they should put their duty to their patient above the demands of the
law. There is a conflict of interests in that decision. They rely upon their
professional judgement as to whether it is in the best interests of the child –
even it they are in danger of facing a potential criminal prosecution.
She said that it has been held
in Canada that the ‘good faith’ immunity provision protects the practitioner
from a complaint by the alleged abuser being taken to the GMC as well as
immunity from prosecution by the legal authorities. As for UK legislation, she
thought that there should be immunity, in all aspects, for anyone reporting
suspicion of child sex abuse – when it is “in good faith”.
Her experience in Canada led her to the
conclusion that the biggest thing we could do in the UK is to have notices about
child sex abuse in every school and every doctor’s surgery. These notices would
state that reporting could be ‘good faith’ reporting – and be immune from legal
liability
UNITED STATES
Most states in the USA have mandatory
reporting for the professions and such institutions. There are exemptions for
some professions.
One member of the symposium said that
research in the United States shows that there is a fall-off in children
attending sexual health clinics because they know that they are mandatory
reporters.
Another contributor noted that the experience
from America is that people don’t seem to notice the signs. They assume that bed
wetting is the problem – they don’t go on to think that it might be because of
child sex abuse. She thought there needed to be greater understanding of the
problem. She emphasised the need to listen to children.
AUSTRALIA.
Australia has a variety of different laws and
systems on mandatory reporting in its nine states and territories.
Australia was mentioned
several times in the symposium. Reference was made to a document on the internet
at: http://core.ac.uk/download/files/310/10881440.pdf
One contributor recommended that all should
read this document.
This contributor claimed that research about
to be published indicated that after the introduction of mandatory reporting:
(i) the number of reports to various agencies
has now substantially dropped to below pre-mandatory reporting days.
(ii) the number of substantiations of reports
has risen
(iv) mandatory reporting put less strain on
the resources.
Allied report on general experience
One contributor made a general comment about
systems designed to deal with problems.
He had some twenty years experience in
banking management. (He is now an executive in a global organisation which
attempts to improve business leadership through education and the exchange of
ideas.)
He said that in his experience “control
management” is the least effective form of management.
He expanded this by saying that most of the
successful companies in the world provide training in order to give the
individuals within the company the ability to form and use their own judgement.
They are encouraged to drive their company forward by using their own knowledge
and their own best judgment.
He said that if you impose your will on
people, they will pass the buck. If something goes wrong, they will say ‘ But I
followed the procedure’. That, to them, is enough.
Such an attitude does not stop poor behaviour
or performance. He thought that if a company has such a problem, it must
change the culture and empower people to make their own decisions.
He thought, as an outside observer, that this
was relevant to the present discussions.
THE FAMILY.
There was frequent reference throughout the
symposium of the effect that mandatory reporting might have on families.
One member thought that there was a
fundamental point to make which is that, by looking at mandatory reporting, its
advantages and disadvantages, the symposium was not addressing the main point of
the issue of child sex abuse. She thought that it is better to intervene at the
beginning of such abuse rather than approach it from the end with a punitive
approach. She said that family therapy was the key. The problem today is how to
create channels of approach, education and support in order to intervene in
families where children are being sexually abused.
Another contributor reported that the NSPCC
has done a lot of work on mandatory reporting in which they mentioned ‘family
centred’ intervention.
Another member said that it was important to
remember that mandatory reporting, as suggested, does not apply to the family
setting – it only applies to institutions and such.
A social worker said that her view was that
if a young person reported that he or she was being abused by a members, or
members of her family (something the contributor thought to be common) then
there was a greater duty to report this in order to protect the young person. In
such circumstances, she thought mandatory reporting would help.
Another member of the symposium mentioned
children who are without family and cast out into the world. In terms of
putting children first, should they not have priority in some fashion?
THE LAW.
A participant spoke about the principles of
law. He outlined the differences between common law and statute law. Under
common law the court decides on a case involving a clinician on the basis of
whether other such clinicians would act in like manner. This brings
professional duties and ethics into the decision. Professionals have a duty to
protect confidentiality, but also the protection of the public – two aims which
are often at odds. In common law therefore it is a matter of personal judgement
and professional guidelines.
The current proposal is to shift disclosure
from common law to statute law. This is a crucial decision - because the right
to confidentiality can become obscured.
He added that there is also, in common law, a
duty of care which professionals must be careful to ensure. If disclosure of
suspected child sex abuse became mandatory, there would be a profound change in
the relationship between clinicians and the general public.
Another member of the symposium said she
considered that the law is not clear to practitioners.
A lawyer in the room remarked that there is
often a knee-jerk reaction to events - which is to introduce a new criminal
offence. This was not a good idea – particularly since mandatory reporting was
aimed at professionals. She said that it is one thing to ensure that
professionals stick to the guidelines, but to make not sticking to them that a
criminal offence would be disastrous. She pointed out that it would be
impossible to distinguish between the professions which deal with child sex
abuse - with their guidelines and management structure - and the institutions
which deal with child abuse - with their guidelines and management structure.
They would be largely the same people with possibly two different sets of
guidlines. Would failure to report to both together, to one and not the other,
merit prosecution?
She then turned to discussing
“criminalisation by association” She recounted a case she had defended
(successfully). It concerned a Muslim wife whose husband had committed acts of
terrorism. The wife was completely ignorant of her husband’s activities, yet she
had been accused of complicity.
Mandatory reporting would be particularly bad
if it were to lead to ‘criminalisation by association’ of a professional who
is actually trying to help someone. If that happened, nothing would ever make
things right.
She concluded that mandatory reporting,
prosecuting the non-reporting of a criminal offence, could make things worse
than they are at present. It was, in her opinion, a diversion from the real
issues.
Turning discussion to Articles 3 and 12 of
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), she commented
that there was already some difficulty in the law. Article 3 says that we must
take decisions in the best interests of the child – but article 12 says that
children should have a say in decisions taken about them.
She added however that members might have a
look at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should
consider whether we should incorporate the Convention into domestic
legislation. She thought that this would be a more useful change than mandatory
reporting in protecting children.
A member with experience of other
jurisdictions stated that perhaps the only advantage of mandatory reporting, as
she saw it in other jurisdictions, is that they all contain immunity from
liability in statutory reporting, in “good-faith” reporting. She added that some
jurisdictions have immunity to all reports, other confine themselves to
‘good-faith’ reporting, because there is a lot of malicious reporting.
Another participant, exploring the idea of
limited mandatory reporting, suggested that in terms of institutional abuse,
criminalisation could centre on evidence of a cover-up rather than simple
non-reporting. By adopting this principle, the state could go after churches
which have covered up priests and schools which have covered up paedophile
teachers. This would be a form of limited criminalisation.
Someone else remarked that there are already
terrorism laws when one must report suspicions - and section 3 of the Proceeds
of Crime Act says that if there is suspicion of money laundering, people are
supposed to report or they will be in trouble.
Another participant reiterated the point that
mandatory reporting could be criminalising professionals for exercising their
professional judgement. She pointed out that this may well be a different
situation from that of an institution which cares for children.
With institutions, the decision not to report
might not necessarily be that it is best for the child. There is the reputation
of the institution to consider. Mandatory reporting might be preferable in an
institution where the institution itself has a vested interest in a cover up.
This was particularly so with independent schools where the reputational damage
of such a report might be very great.
Various other legal points were raised, based
on experience. One member referred to people watching child pornography on the
internet. He said that only about ten per cent of cases he knew about would be
termed “illegal” and would need to be reported. That this number is so low has
it caused changes in his modus operandi in dealing with internet pornography
crime. What happens now is that researchers pro-actively go looking for it
rather than waiting for reports. That would seem to be a more effective of
dealing with it. However, with relevance to mandatory reporting, it is a
pre-reporting stage.
He agreed with others that creating a new
criminal offence is not the way to go. He said that, on principle, we should
always be extremely careful about creating a new criminal offence.
A psychologist pointed to a difficulty with
the idea of mandatory reporting of suspicions of child sex abuse. She said that
there may well be various non-specific indicators leading to the raising of
suspicion to a threshold where mandatory reporting should take place – but who
makes that assessment. How do you define “suspected”?
Another participant added that, in general,
the criminal justice system is not child friendly. She was aware of lots of
people who have suffered abuse who will not go to the police because they do not
think will get the answers that they want.
She thought that there was a fundamental
point here about prosecution and justice in this matter.
A psychologist added an ancillary point with
a hypothetical example. He spoke of a person who was inclined towards
paedophilia, but who did not wish to offend. This person, if mandatory reporting
were brought in, would know, or at least suspect, that should he go to a
psychiatrist for help, there may be a report which could lead to prosecution. He
could be taken out of his family, even if only as a precautionary measure.
Meanwhile, and in contrast however, his next
door neighbour might be doing the same thing. However, because he is not seeking
help, nothing happens to him.
The man wishing to do the right thing might
be punished, the offender might not. This is not justice.
RESOURCES.
Almost every aspect
of discussion ended with either a complaint or comment on the lack of resources.
Those with experience in legislature made it clear that there was little hope of
getting increased resources. Nevertheless not all the matters raised concerned
increase in resources. Some were about where the current resources could be
better employed. A social worker said
that in spite of the training there was often a lack of experience in teachers
and educational staff about child sex abuse. She complained further that the
training that is done does not include how to spot child abuse, nor how to spot
the changes in young people's behaviour which might suggest it.
Another participant reported that she had
met many people who claimed that there had been delay in making their
disclosure - simply because there was nobody to disclose to.
Nevertheless many
people around the table spoke of a lack of sufficient resources.
A member who had medical qualifications said
that without doubt there were professionals with high standards, but this was
merely the tip of the iceberg – she worked with children who were under the
water and something had to be done to help them.
Another spoke about people who work in
situations of emergency where they have little time. Placed in intense
situations, with little time, they sometimes have a tendency to ‘close down’
conversations. So the first hints of sex abuse might be easily ignored.
Another participant said that there are huge
numbers of children who do not get the kind of therapy that they need. She
quoted a case of two children, aged five and seven, whose father had been
abusing them and who was convicted of grooming children. They were given a new
home in Scotland, but had never subsequently had therapy. Those children remain
at risk as adults because they have not had any therapy.
She said that we have seen many stories over
the past few years in different sectors of society where children have been
failed. What is coming out is that we haven’t taken this matter seriously.
That, she thought, is what we should really be looking at. We would not be
overwhelming the whole system if we did that.
Against this, another participant said that
if all reporting was mandatory to the local authority there would be a massive
increase in reporting. She thought there would be a massive increase of reports
of incest – and, at the moment, the local authorities will not intervene in
such cases. Even when the resources
were present there could be problems in determining who had responsibility to
take action. A probation officer reported that a system that they had used to
report (48,000 cases a year) had failed because the social services had not
acted upon the reports, thinking that the probation service was dealing with
them. In turn, the probation officers had thought that the reports had been
dealt with. They had begun to consider that risk to the child was the job of
someone else, not of their service.
POLICE.
Mandatory reporting, as it was
suggested in 2014, would have meant that reports would be made either to the
Local Authority Designated Officers (LADOs) or the police. Much was said at the
symposium concerning the resources needed by both of these organisations in
order for them to deal with reports. Lengthy, complicated and potentially
hurtful investigations by the police were of particular concern.
One retired police present officer thought
that everything should be cleared up before there was any approach to the
police. This should happen, he thought, even if mandatory reporting were
introduced. His reasons for this were that the Crown Prosecution Service
require the police to submit evidence on every case and the police in turn need
the cooperation of everyone to get the evidence. This takes up time and
resources.
He considered that if others did not want the
victims involved because they were children, the police would get nowhere with
gathering evidence so it would all be a waste of time. He pointed out that the
police cannot force people to give evidence.
A psychotherapist sympathised with this
opinion. She said that if everybody reported the slightest suspicion to the
police, the police could never investigate anything. She thought that there
was nothing that will make things right suddenly in cases of child sex abuse.
She considered that more training and resources for people with children in
their care would make things better.
The retired police officer thought that there
should be a body of people where one might get advice as to whether a certain
matter should be reported. He again questioned whether a case should ever be
reported to the police since there was no guarantee that even more stress might
not be put upon the victim.
From his own experience he knew that such
investigations could be damaging. And this was not just in questioning the
victim. He said he had frequently had to go to the victims and their families in
order explain why there is to be no prosecution.
Another participant wondered if reports to
the police were necessary at all. She wondered if local authorities could do
the job – or perhaps other safeguarding offices?
She also spoke about the level of suspicion
which would require intervention. She pointed out that last year’s amendment, as
it was written, said that reports don't all have to go to the police. She
pointed out that there are many statutes that, when breached, do not require
reports to go to the police. They do not have a criminal tariff attached to
them if they are breached. Why should non-reporting not be placed in this
classification?
She considered that the general view around
the table was that a suspicion should go to a guidance panel, not necessarily to
the police.
Another former police officer agreed that
mandatory reporting would create a real problem for the police if the victim did
not want the case to go forward. Nonetheless, the police would have to
investigate the allegation.
However, he considered that, in general, the
system actually works – a person is innocent until proved guilty – not guilty
until proved innocent. So an allegation is only an allegation and may not lead
to an investigation.
He felt that where we are going wrong lies in
the fact that the police need to rely on the Crown Prosecution Service to decide
whether there is enough evidence or not. This takes time. He felt that in the
process the child is the one who suffers.
On the other hand, he pointed out that young
police officers today are not as naïve as he had been in his younger days. They
knew better how to listen to children. To support this view that our perceptions
and concerns had changed, he pointed out that in the eighties there would not
have been a symposium such as this. Such things did not happen.
Another participant summarised, saying that
if it is true at the moment that only a small percentage of cases come to the
attention of the authorities, we must note that police forces are being cut
every year. The CPS is, of course, being cut likewise. She thought that with
mandatory reporting, the police and the CPS would be inundated.
This would lead to a different problem. She
thought that they would fail to give the service that the general public
expect. An unwarranted expectation would be created.
SUMMARY
The general view was that reform is
necessary, but it must be made with due consideration of the resources already
at the disposal of the authorities, rather than seeking more resources. This,
despite a strong view expressed by some, that protecting children from sex
abuse - sometimes overlooked or ill-defined in the past - was necessary at any
price.
Systems from other jurisdictions,
particularly Australia and Canada were attractive. The research done on
mandatory reporting in Australia was considered worthy of study. The idea of
“good faith” reporting, giving immunity to those reporting, was serious
consideration should mandatory reporting be introduced.
There was a strong body of opinion that
mandatory reporting conflicted with the code of confidentiality between patients
and clinicians. Several examples of the possible deleterious effect on the
medical professions were mentioned.
There was also a strong body of opinion about
the principles involving law if mandatory reporting were introduced. One such
was the comment that mandatory reporting was directed not at the victim, nor at
the perpetrator, but at a professional who was working within professional
guidelines that were approved by the government.
The general view was that statutory changes
should not be made, but that all professional bodies and all institutions which
care for children should have clear guidelines, understandable to all, which
are approved by government. Current training should incorporate sessions on such
guidelines.
Since this reform would not cover a third
category of area of child sex abuse – i.e. instances outside the professions and
institutions – there was a suggestion that an accessible office should be set up
to which all, including possible victims, might go to get advice about where
they might report suspicions.
|