DOJ-OGR-00005899.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 32 of 43

288 S. Craven et al.

weaknesses of these definitions are discussed in turn below. First, O’Connell defines sexual grooming as:

A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes. (O’Connell, 2003, p. 6)

Second, Howitt suggests that:

Grooming . . . is the steps taken by paedophiles to “entrap” their victims and is in someways analogous to adult courtship. (Howitt, 1995, p. 176)

These two definitions are problematic, because they both refer to the term paedophile. Most sexual offenders who target child victims use sexual grooming, not just those classified as paedophiles. The term “paedophile” is a very specific clinical diagnosis, clearly not applicable to all offenders, and the association of grooming behaviour with paedophilia may prevent some offenders from acknowledging their own grooming behaviours. In addition, people known to the offender may not identify the grooming behaviour because they do not consider the individual to fit their image of a “paedophile”. The public perception of a paedophile is littered with stereotypes that they are “dirty old men” or strangers; these perceptions may affect an individual’s judgement of whether the behaviour they have observed is grooming. These misperceptions distract from the truth that most victims know their abuser. It is important that the wording of a definition does not thwart the identification of sexual grooming and the subsequent prevention or ending of abuse.
Furthermore, the phrase “a course of conduct” requires subsequent definition. Additional problems include reference to “a reasonable person” and “cause for concern”. Although legal precedent defines these phrases, they are ambiguous to the lay reader and hence they are open to misinterpretation and confusion. These definitions are confusing, at best, and at worst they reinforce the myth that strangers are the biggest risk to children. Consequently, this ambiguity may hinder the identification of the full range of sexual grooming behaviours.
Gillespie (2002) provides the third definition:

The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child’s confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child. (Gillespie, 2002, p. 411; based on van Dam, 2001)

This definition avoids the use of the term paedophile. It also provides some clarity about the purpose of sexual grooming behaviour and identifies some of the stages that it involves. This appears to be the most appropriate published definition to date. Further evaluation of this definition will follow consideration of previous literature and current understanding about sexual grooming.

Prevalence

Canter, Hughes and Kirby (1998) provide evidence for the prevalence of the sexual grooming phenomenon. They used Small Space Analysis on a behaviour matrix of the interaction between 97 incarcerated child sex offenders and their victims. They identified three distinct behaviour repertoires of offender–victim interaction. The different types of offender–victim interaction acknowledged were aggressive, which was identifiable by the use of extreme

DOJ-OGR-00005899