02Apr22d SAP submission (Tom)

It's been quite a month, starting with the furore over priests and latterly with the Levine book as a much more encouraging focus of controversy. April has also seen Harriss Mirkin's university docked $100,000 and the US Supreme Court striking down the law against "virtual child pornography". Ipce's own profile has been raised as a result of media interest prompted by Stephanie Dallam, of anti-Rind fame, resulting in Rod's radio interview and an approach from the LA Times, while within Ipce there have been two developments: on the Clogo (which I like), and Peter's challenging piece concerning hermeneutics (to which I hope to be making a response shortly).

Now I too have an announcement to make which I hope will be seen as fairly significant news. I just hope it won't go unnoticed with so much else happening!

This is to say that I recently spent a great deal of research time and writing effort in producing a submission to the British government's Sentencing Advisory Panel. The resulting 57-page document on sentencing in relation to the child pornography laws reached the SAP a couple of days before the 10 April deadline set when the SAP invited responses from the public to its Consultation Paper of 15 January.

The last week or so before the submission was rather pressured, involving a lot of last minute editing, in which I was given superb help by Mark in the US. Drafts were flying back and forth across the Atlantic and my text was hugely improved through his very swiftly provided comments.

Ricky in the UK also read the draft and I have used several of his suggestions, particularly as regards his detailed knowledge of the Sex Offfenders Register and the 1988 "possession" law. I must make the usual -- and very important -- comment to the effect that I am very grateful for the improvements they suggested but must nevertheless take full responsibility regarding the small number of instances in which I doggedly stuck to my own way of putting things against their advice.

I hope Frans will feel the text of this document is suitable for inclusion on the Ipce public website and with this in mind I am sending a version already edited in HTML. There has been some delay in providing this file, and in making this announcement, simply because I needed to catch up on other aspects of my life -- like getting the car fixed etc -- after spending several solid weeks devoted to researching and writing.

I intend in due course to mail/email the document to selected media and legal figures with a view to generating a higher quality of public discourse on the issues. Indeed I suspect little is to be hoped for from the SAP itself. The Consultation Paper discloses an unhelpful mind-set on the Panel: my contribution is more likely to infuriate than to persuade them. I do believe, though, that once the judges and law professors among them have started reading it they will be well and truly hooked: they will read all 57 pages with the most avid interest.

That will not be the case, perhaps, with all that many Ipce members. Much of what I am writing about is concerned, inevitably, with the minutiae of British law. As such it will probably be of only limited interest to those in other countries, although the laws of the United States, Canada and New Zealand are also considered. However, the underlying principles I set out are of a more universal nature. I would appreciate any feedback from members, particularly as regards whether they feel I have made the right kind of submission and how best it can now be exploited by being presented to a wider audience.

I am mindful of the fact that Leo wrote a brilliant submission to the British government a couple of years ago in relation to a review of the laws on sexual offending. It was a masterpiece of concise writing, clearly setting out a vision of principled reform in the most elegantly spare and logically irrefutable terms. It must have been obvious to anyone but a fool that the author was writing with great authority and that decades of deliberation lay behind every word. And yet his wise words were as pearls cast before swine: in the final report of the committee in question his submission was ignored entirely.

Will the fate of my effort be any different? I doubt it. As I say, I have little faith in the SAP itself. But looking beyond the SAP I think there is reason to suppose my work may have a little more influence than Leo's, despite being composed with less artistry. This is partly because Leo's work was never, to the best of my knowledge, "marketed" further afield. It was a minimalist piece, designed to make its point to its target readership without wasting words. Mine is more of a maximalist effort. I don't think it wastes words (thanks to Mark's cuts!) but there is a lot of information in it that I hope will be persuasive in some important quarters other than the SAP, and which can be made use of in other significant contexts. We'll see.

Tom