VANCOUVER - A B.C. Supreme Court judge has dismissed constitutional challenges to the federal Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
Justice Geoffrey Barrow says a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom was not established in the three petitions that were dismissed in a decision released this week.
Barrow stressed, however, that his decision doesn't make it impossible to argue in the future that the act might violate the Charter.
The petitions came from three convicted sex offenders -- called C, L and M in the decision -- who objected to registering under the act.
One argued registration was a punishment over and above the sentence for his crime and infringed on his Charter rights.
A second said registration would be an infringement of his privacy while the third argued the requirement to register creates a reverse onus that is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
The legislation creating the registry came into force Dec. 15, 2004. It requires those convicted of sex offences after that date to register, while those convicted before must register if they receive a court notice to do so.
C was convicted of one count of sexual assault on June 6, 2004 and sentenced to an 18-month conditional jail term and 12 months of probation.
He said that should there be a sexual offence in his neighbourhood, he would have the police at his door, something he considered an impact on his privacy.
He had applied for an exemption to registering, saying the impact on his liberty was disproportionate to the public interest.
But Barrow wrote: "I am not persuaded that the legislation amounts to an infringement on a registrant's reasonable expectation of privacy.''
He added that the information in the registry is to be kept confidential by police and any violation of that requirement is punishable.
L was sentenced June 11, 2004 for one count of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference.
His lawyer argued the requirement to register was further punishment on top of his sentence and thus a violation of the Charter.
M was given a 15-month conditional sentence and a nine-month suspended sentence respectively for sexual assault and one of assault causing bodily harm.
He argued the legislation puts the responsibility for registration with the offender -- a so-called reverse onus. He argued that's constitutionally unfair and contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
Barrow's decision noted one case in which the judge declined to make an order requiring a man convicted of three offences against his daughter to comply with the act.
"It is desirable that the registry not be so inclusive as to include so many low-risk offenders as to dilute the resources and attention of the police from those that pose a genuine risk,'' the judge wrote.
The judge said the registry was aimed at predatory sex offenders and that the impact on the man in question would be "grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the administration of justice.''
Criminologist Neil Boyd of Burnaby, B.C.'s Simon Fraser University agreed.
"I think the problem with the registry as it currently exists is that it is too inclusive,'' Boyd said.
"We know it is only a small handful of predatory sex offenders and a small group of people who show consistent sexual interest in children who are likely to re-offend.''
Boyd said 90 per cent of all new sex offences are committed by people who have not committed previous sex offences.
The cases were heard by Barrow in July, September and November.
