MANY people are cautious about “Sarah’s Law” which has been trialled in Stockton, among other places, and now looks likely to be extended across the country.

It is very different from “Megan’s Law” in the US, which, in some states, allows publication of names, addresses and pictures of convicted sex offenders.

Under Sarah’s Law, a person concerned about someone who has access to their child is able to request information about convictions from the police.

The information is not given lightly and it must not be passed on by the recipient.

During a six-month trial across the country, police have dealt with 150 requests, and ten people are said to have received “relevant information”. The children that have been the beneficiaries of that “relevant information” may well have escaped a life-changing trauma, which has to be positive.

One of the main users of the law are single mothers. Paedophiles can strike up relationships with them solely to gain access to their children and they might want to reassure themselves about a new partner.

The fears about such a law were that it would drive offenders underground, forcing them to break contact with police and probation. It was also feared it would promote vigilante attacks.

But vigilante attacks are often the result of rumour and suspicion. Sarah’s Law replaces unfounded fears with solid information, and a mechanism appears to have been created which releases that information in a sensitive way. The trials are said not to show an increase in vigilantism or that paedophiles are encouraged to break contact with the authorities.

As is so often the case, information and openness do equate to power and they do prevent unfounded fears about a cover-up.