Child exploitation and the digital age:

Transcription

1 Child exploitation and the digital age: Balancing the criminal justice response to address offenders, victims and community expectations. Marni Manning, Manager, Policy, QSAC April Chrzanowski, Manager, Research and Statistics, QSAC QSAC is an independent statutory body. The contents of this presentation reflect the findings of the Classification of child exploitation material for sentencing purposes: Final report (2017). It does not represent or reflect Government policy, position, views or opinions.

2 Overview Who we are What we were asked to do How we did it What we found What we recommended What we learned

3 Who we are - an introduction to QSAC Established under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 Independent statutory body Functions: Provide advice to the Attorney-General about sentencing, if asked Give information to the community to enhance knowledge of sentencing Publish information about sentencing Research sentencing matters and publish the outcomes Obtain the community s views on sentencing provide its views on the giving or reviewing of a guideline judgment, if asked Not individual cases appeal processes

4 What we were asked to do Inaugural Terms of Reference (ToR) Classification of child exploitation material for sentencing purposes (Nov 2016) To provide advice on the effectiveness and ongoing suitability of Queensland s current approach to the classification of child exploitation material The Queensland Government proposed Sentencing Advisory Council, once established, as a matter or priority, review the use of the current Oliver scale classification system, other classification options, and the merits of using random sampling, in the sentencing process (rec. 4.11: Queensland Organised Crime Commission of Inquiry 2015)

5 What we were asked to do The ToR requested the Council to: Examine alternative classification systems Assess whether previously classified material can be relied on for sentencing Consider random sampling of seized CEM for sentencing Balance the needs of a sentencing court with the need for police to retain focus on victim identification Assess electronic databases for reducing the time law enforcement spend classifying CEM Examine the adequacy of relevant sections of the Penalties and Sentences Act (1992) (Qld) for CEM offences Consider any other relevant matters. Attorney-General requested QSAC give strong consideration to reducing delays, prioritising victim identification, protecting officer wellbeing and reflecting community concern about this issue as underlying imperatives for the review.

6 How we did it Determined the scope of the project What was scoped in and what was scoped out a system focused and technical review Stage 1 initial research (literature review) and consultation with key agencies secured and analysed statistical information reviewed sentencing remarks in CEM cases published a consultation paper on 13 March 2017 and invited submissions

7 How we did it Stage 2 reviewed submissions extended targeted consultation published a Sentencing Spotlight on CEM offences (data paper) undertook data linking and additional analyses drafted recommendations consulted on recommendations with key agencies at a roundtable meeting on 28 April 2017

8 Agencies consulted Queensland Police Service Australian Federal Police Crime and Corruption Commission Office of the DPP (Qld) Office of the DPP (Commonwealth) Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Heads of jurisdiction Chief Magistrate, Chief Judge Queensland Corrective Services Queensland Bar Association Queensland Law Society Legal Aid Queensland

9 Agencies consulted ViSION Queensland Police Union of Employees Bravehearts Protect All Children Today DPP offices in all other Australian jurisdictions Police services in all other Australian jurisdictions and international Departments of Justice in all other Australian jurisdictions Office of the esafety Commissioner, Australian Government Crown Prosecution Service, England and Wales Her Majesty s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, UK Sentencing Council for England and Wales New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs

10 What we found CEM is not victimless Delays are associated with CEM cases CEM is international with a local footprint all jurisdictions have, or are currently grappling, with the same issues the criminal justice system uses classification differently depending on agency sexting requires dedicated attention prevention of CEM remains important

11 What we found - data Profile of offenders nature of offence, age, gender, and indigenous status Sentencing Outcomes Time taken to sentence offenders Recidivism

12 Profile of offenders sentenced in courts CEM offenders sentenced in Queensland courts by MSO, to Source: Queensland Government Statistician s Office, Queensland Treasury - Courts Database, extracted January 2017

13 Profile of offenders sentenced in courts Number of offenders sentenced, by age at sentence, to Source: Queensland Government Statistician s Office, Queensland Treasury - Courts Database, extracted January 2017

14 Profile of offenders sentenced in courts CEM offence types as MSO by gender, to Source: Queensland Government Statistician s Office, Queensland Treasury - Courts Database, extracted January 2017

15 Profile of offenders sentenced in courts CEM offence types as MSO by Indigenous status, to Source: Queensland Government Statistician s Office, Queensland Treasury - Courts Database, extracted January 2017

16 Sentencing Outcomes The majority of CEM offenders are sentenced to an order of imprisonment, with most receiving a wholly or partially suspended sentence Sexting offences by youth are diverted by Police

17 Profile of offenders dealt with by police All offenders dealt with for CEM offences in Queensland, to Source: QPS QPrime Database; Queensland Treasury Courts Database, extracted January 2017

18 What we found: Delay Duration analysis CEM cases finalised in by Queensland courts by stage Variable Total number Mean (months) Standard Deviation (months) Median (months) Minimum (days) Maximum (years) Charge to committal* Committal to lodgment** Lodgment to sentence Charge to sentence Source: QPS QPrime database, Queensland Government Statistician s Office, Queensland Treasury Courts database, extracted January 2017 * Involves the classification of CEM by police ** Where the matter involves an indictment, lodgement date is the date of presentation of the indictment.

19 What we found: Recidivism Focus on a single year cohort: Prior Offending (5 years prior) 40% of CEM offenders had at least one prior court event 4% of CEM offenders had at least one prior CEM offence Subsequent Offending (5 years post) 4% of CEM offenders had subsequent CEM offending 2% of CEM offenders had subsequent CONTACT offending

20 What we found: Oliver Despite there being no legal requirement to use Oliver, it has assumed a central and ongoing role in sentencing Most other Australian jurisdictions use the same classification approach as Qld, largely due to the (since failed) implementation of the CETS/ANVIL approach It is not effective resource intensive, comprises the police priority of victim ID, does not adequately depict offending seriousness, contributes to delay in finalising offences, has an inherent risk of error, and threatens officer wellbeing

21 What we found: random sampling practical application of this approach does not and cannot achieve its objectives has led to serious concerns for justice in both directions (false positives, false negatives) council does not support random sampling, but finds that the use of a threshold approach for sentencing may be appropriate with further examination

22 What we found: recommendations 16 recommendations in total Targeted specific terms of reference Recommendation 1: The council recommends amending section 9(7) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) by: (a) Replacing the wording image of a child in subsection 9(7)(a) with material depicting a child. (b) Adding a new subsection role of the offender. (c) Adding a new subsection offender s relationship with the child.

23 Recommendation 5 The council recommends the adoption of the Q-CEM Package incorporating a Classification of CEM Schema (CCS) and a Child Exploitation Material Analysis (CEMA) report, as the most appropriate approach for presenting timely and adequate information about CEM before Queensland courts for sentencing.

24

25 Proposed Classification of CEM Schema (CCS) for Queensland under the Q-CEM Package Category level Description Illegal 1 INTERPOL Baseline files (facilitates direct integration with over 49 countries and sharing of hash values) Material (still and video) depicting real prepubescent child (under age of 13 years approximately) and the child is involved in a sexual act, is witnessing a sexual act or the material is focused/concentrated on the child s anal or genital region. 2 Other Queensland CEM files Material (still, video and text, sound and/or drawing) depicting a real child between years or an animate (artificial) child under 16 years, in a sexual context includin engaging in a sexual activity, in an offensive or demeaning context, or being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture. 3 Related investigative interest files (non-illegal) (Age and requirement for real child precludes inclusion in category 1) Material that forms part of a CEM series but is not CEM. This material may contain clues for investigators, as offenders may be less likely to conceal identifiable features of an offender, a location and/or a victim. Legal (Not category 1 or 2) 4 Ignorable files Material considered legal and not relevant to an investigation. (Not category 1,2 or 3)

26 Proposed CEMA report Should include the following information: how the offender came to police attention (linked to triage) how many devices were seized (linked to triage) relevant field information (linked to triage) results of classification outcomes and collection volume (as at that date) results, if possible, from internal QPS library tagging the time period over which the offender has collected the material

27 Recommendation 8 The council recommends: consideration is given to introducing thresholds by adding a provision to the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) regarding a CEM certificate. The certificate would be evidence of the fact an authorised officer conducted classification of seized CEM in accordance with the threshold method. a threshold method set by a regulation (most likely the Evidence Regulation 2007) to extend time savings in the classification of CEM for Queensland courts. an independent body evaluate the use of a threshold process if implemented at six-month and two-year evaluation points.

28 Recommendations 9 & 10 The council recommends the Queensland Government elevate the issue of coordination and cooperation in both classification approaches and data sharing to the national level via the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council. The council recommends the Queensland Government consider removing any legislative impediments to the sharing of CEM between law enforcement agencies, which include criminal intelligence organisations.

29 Recommendation 11 The council recommends the establishment of an esafeq Commissioner position to meet the challenges associated with online offending and protect Queensland children and families in the virtual environment.

30 What we learned This is a highly complex and multi-faceted issue QSAC s whole-of-sector approach is critical Open consultation with key stakeholders must be undertaken early and often to achieve an iterative approach to a solution despite initial considerations the public s voice is always critical and reveals new insights Ensuring the right people are around the table investment in this is well worth it, particularly when the timeframes are short The importance of an independent arbitrator when there are strong views on a whole-of-sector criminal justice problem The increasing need for evidence of the existing problem, of the baseline situation, and then of the impact of implementing efforts to solve the problem

31 Thank you final report available at: research/child-exploitation-material QSAC is an independent statutory body. The contents of this presentation reflect the findings of the Classification of child exploitation material for sentencing purposes: Final report (2017). It does not represent or reflect Government policy, position, views or opinions.