Chemical castration proposal could face human rights hurdles, Feetham says 

Nigel Feetham, the Minister for Justice, Trade and Industry, said on Thursday that a proposal to consider chemical castration as part of sentencing for serious sexual offences could conflict with human rights obligations and would need to be legally watertight to be introduced. 

The prospect of using chemical castration in Gibraltar was first reported by GBC earlier this week but it was not clear what exactly the minister was considering. 

In the UK, for example, the UK Government is expanding a pilot scheme under which certain convicted sex offenders in selected prisons can choose to take medication such as antiandrogen drugs that suppress sex drive as a way of reducing reoffending risk. 

But the UK approach requires the voluntary consent of the offender, whereas Mr Feetham wants to explore whether chemical castration can be imposed in a mandatory fashion as part of a sentence for convicted sex offenders. 

“Following the recent Montegriffo conviction and sentencing, I have written to the UK [Government] to seek clarification of the position of the United Kingdom regarding the use of medical interventions as part of sentencing or post-conviction management for serious sexual offenders,” Mr Feetham told the Chronicle. 

“I understand that in England and Wales, interventions often referred to as ‘chemical castration’ are currently available only on a voluntary basis.” 

“In particular, I am considering an amendment to the sexual offences Bill currently before Parliament, for the potential for introducing a provision requiring mandatory medical intervention for certain categories of serious sexual offenders, specifically relating to children.” 

“We want the views of the UK Government, if any, on whether such an approach would be compatible with human rights obligations or would be likely to be objected to in-principle.” 

“This is because as you will be aware, legislation in Gibraltar requires UK Royal Assent, so it is important that we fully understand the UK’s position before taking any further steps.” 

Chemical castration refers to the use of hormonal drugs to reduce pathological sexual behaviour. It does not involve physical mutilation. 

In the UK, its voluntary use is allowed because it is seen as a medical intervention that can be beneficial to the offender receiving the treatment. 

For now, the UK Government’s formal stance is that chemical castration is a treatment option, to be used alongside psychological interventions and risk management strategies and only where the offender agrees. 

Even so, the UK Government is looking into the feasibility of making chemical castration mandatory for some categories of serious sex offenders, especially in the context of broader sentencingreform and prisonovercrowding measures. 

Such a step, however, would raise complex ethical questions and risk clashing with existing medical consent and human rights standards and laws.  

Several countries, including in western Europe, already allow mandatory chemical castration in certain circumstances. 

In Poland, for example, courts can order compulsory chemical castration for certain sexual offenders, but voluntary forms are also used in treatment settings. 

Likewise, courts in Estonia can order chemical castration for up to three years as an additional treatment measure for people convicted of sexual offences against children. 

Other countries around the world including Ukraine, Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia and South Korea also allow compulsory chemical castration in cases involving sexual abuse of children, as do several US states. 

Chemical castration is available as voluntary treatment for sex offenders in many countries including Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada and Israel, often as a riskreduction measure before or after release, and sometimes tied to earlyrelease or parole considerations but not as a forced penalty. 

In Gibraltar, the issue is being considered in response to recent high-profile trials that have put a focus on how this community responds to cases involving serious sexual offences. 

“The Montegriffo case, even taking into account the age and health of the offender, is deeply disturbing, and it raises difficult questions about the range of measures available in addressing the most serious sexual offences,” Mr Feetham said.  

“I had previously indicated that no options should be ruled out for the most serious cases involving sexual offending against children.” 

“I recognise, however, this would need to be carefully assessed and must withstand appropriate legal scrutiny under the UK’s international human rights obligations.”