The Government is proposing heavy new penalties, including life imprisonment, for crimes included under a Sexual Offences Act which Prime Minister Bruce Golding hopes to have passed before the end of the year.

The bill proposes life imprisonment for persons found guilty of sexual intercourse with, or grievous sexual assault upon children under 16; householders, etcetera, guilty of inducing or encouraging violation of children under 16; as well as in cases of incest.

The bill also includes provision for the establishment of a register of sex offenders to be known as the Sex Offenders Register.

Sentences of a maximum 16 years for attempting to have sexual intercourse with a child under 16, and 15 years for indecent assault are also proposed.

In terms of the very current issue of the abduction of children under 16, prison terms of seven to 14 years are proposed, as well as 15 years both for procuring persons for sexual exploit or human trafficking.

The bill also proposed penalties for violating persons suffering from mental disorders and abduction of persons under the age of 18.

It was tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by Golding, fulfilling a promise he made in Parliament at the end of October to have it tabled and passed before the end of the calendar year.

“I am going to urge members to let us make the time. Let us meet Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary, to deal with it. Let us see if we can bring it into law before Christmas,” Golding urged the members of parliament in October.

The bill is the outcome of a report tabled last year in the Senate by a Joint Select Committee (JSC) chaired by former attorney-general and minister of justice, Senator AJ Nicholson. This bill bears the name of his successor, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne.

Golding decided to table it in the House after Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller insisted on a debate on the report which had been tabled last year, but fell off the Order Paper prior to the change of Government, due to the delay in having the debate.

The issue has been a bone of contention between Government and Opposition senators since the new administration took office last September.

The Government members, led by Lightbourne – who is also leader of Government business in the Upper House – have insisted that Parliament should go straight ahead to debating the bill since both sides support it, instead of the delay to debate the JSC’s report.

Debate on the issue dates back to 1995 when an Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill and an Incest (Punishment) (Amendment) Bill, covering rape, incest and other sexual offences were tabled and referred to a JSC. That committee failed to reach an agreement on several amendments and the bills fell off the Order Paper of the House at the prorogation.

They remained in abeyance until they were retabled in 2006 and referred to another JSC whose report again fell off the Order Paper prior to the 2007 general election.

However, in its report, this JSC did not confine itself to the provisions of the two bills, but also considered case law and developments in the law relating to sexual offences in other jurisdictions.

In light of the various changes to which the JSC agreed, the committee recommended enactment of a comprehensive Sexual Offences Act.

According to the new bill’s “memorandum of objects and reasons”, the Government decided, after considering the views of various organisations and persons, to reform the law relating to rape, incest and other sexual offences by bringing under a single umbrella all laws relating to sexual crimes.

The Bill will repeal the Incest (Punishment) Act and several provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act relating to rape and other sexual offences.

It will also provide for, among other things, a statutory definition of rape; abolition of the common law presumption that a boy under 14 years old is incapable of committing rape; dispensing with the requirement for a judge to give a warning of the danger of convicting an accused in the absence of corroboration of the complainant’s evidence; making evidence as to the complainant’s sexual history with other persons admissible only with leave from the judge; protecting the anonymity of the complainant; and for the offences to be gender-neutral.