The federal government has introduced legislation to add the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and extortion to the list of offences that could land someone on the National Sex Offender Registry.
The addition was highlighted in a statement on Wednesday, ahead of a press conference from Justice Minister David Lametti and Women, Gender Equality and Youth Minister Marci Ien.
The bill in question was introduced in the Senate earlier in the afternoon.
“Sexual offences are amongst the most heinous and degrading forms of violence. They have devastating impact on survivors who are disproportionately women and girls,” Lametti told reporters.
“Police must have the tools they need to investigate and bring sexual offenders to justice. Those tools are also keep our communities safer by preventing further crimes.”
The changes would also lay out who gets added automatically to the list: serious child sex offenders, repeat sexual offenders, and all others unless they can “demonstrate that they pose no risk to the community.”
As well, the legislation would require judges to have sought input from victims of sexual offences about whether they want a publication ban on their case, and would clarify the process for modifying or revoking a publication ban
“The ban is intended to safeguard victims and the people around them, but in reality it can sometimes do the exact opposite. The legislation put forward today, once passed, will ensure that survivors have a say in whether or not they want their names published,” Ien said.
“It gives them the control to tell their own stories and to do so in their own words.”
The update comes after a Supreme Court ruling in October struck down parts of the national sex offender registry, saying in a ruling that mandatory registration of all sex offenders with more than one conviction goes too far.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that keeping offenders on the registry for the rest of their lives violates the Constitution. It gave Ottawa a year to rewrite its legislation before the clause on mandatory listing is struck down.
“While mandatory registration has the attraction of simplicity and ease, the convenience of requiring every sex offender to register does not make it constitutional,” wrote the court in a majority decision.
The ruling was around the conviction of Eugene Ndhlovu, who pleaded guilty in 2015 to sexually assaulting two women in 2011.
Court heard Ndhlovu, who was 19 at the time, was brought to a party publicized by a sexually explicit ad on Facebook. He touched one woman on the buttocks and another in her vagina.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail and three years probation, which he served.
Under 2011 amendments made to the sex offender registry, Ndhlovu’s name would have been permanently added to the list with no discretion for either the judge or the Crown.
But the trial judge found the Crown had introduced almost no evidence to show that the mandatory listing helped police sexual assault investigations.
Justice Andrea Moen found the benefits to society of mandatory lifetime listing didn’t justify the impacts on Ndhlovu, whom Crown experts considered a minimal risk to reoffend. Moen’s ruling was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal, but upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruling said the registry is not intended to punish offenders, but to aid law enforcement.
“(The registry) is nearly 20 years old,” the court wrote.
“Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences.”
Meanwhile, it found the impact of being placed on the registry to be severe.
Offenders must report to police if they change their address, travel or obtain a driver’s licence or a passport. They may be contacted by police at any time.
Three justices dissented from the majority on the constitutionality of mandatory listing, although they agreed that lifetime listing could not be justified. The dissenters wrote that before listing was made mandatory, too many judges were refusing to require offenders to be placed on it, reducing its effectiveness.
But Elvis Iginla, Ndhlovu’s lawyer, said the current legislation reduces the registry’s usefulness by diluting it with low-risk offenders, such as his client.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruling immediately quashed the requirement of lifetime listing. It also exempted Ndhlovu from being listed at all.
— with files from The Canadian Press
Comments