Her son, along with the three other boys, was put on the register under the state's mandatory laws after they pleaded guilty to the charges. The others pleaded guilty to the sexual penetration of a girl over 13 years and less than 16, but argued it had been consensual. Another of the boys' mothers, "Jane", said the police and media had unfairly vilified the boys. "It wasn't rape. There was no violence, nothing. It was all friendly and consensual," she said. "What people are up against is that it is a crime but they didn't know that. The age gap was only two years and you can't compare this to what other people do. "(The courts) should look at each case separately, it would have been fuelled by alcohol and (the boys) not thinking straight.

"They really didn't do much that's the worst thing. It would happen to everyone if it was made public. It happens all the time." The teenagers were spared any jail terms since they were of similar age to the girl and were instead given intensive supervision orders to act as a deterrent to others. The first three (boys) who were charged, they were absolutely crucified in the (news)papers and made it sound like they were rapists. But the under the current legislation they had to be placed on the register, which requires them to report to police and update any changes of address. It also prevents them from going overseas or possibly interstate if they haven't notified authorities. The mother of the 14-year-old girl at the centre of the scandal also did not believe the boys deserved to go on the register, because they were "just kids".

She said that she wished all the parents could have dealt with it rather than involve the police but once the school heard about it, it was referred on. She also held her daughter accountable for the incident after the vision was sent around to mobile phones and was destined to be posted on the social network site Facebook. All the teenagers involved have since suffered some form of bullying once the scandal was made public but the repercussions were far greater for the boys. "They were crucified," Sarah said. "The first three who were charged, they were absolutely crucified in the (news)papers and made it sound like they were rapists and it was like they were sacrificial lambs led to the slaughter. It was horrible. "At the courthouse the reporters and the media had the cameras and were trying to approach the families and every time they went to court they were in fear and it was devastating for the boys and the families."

Jane said it went beyond just the media. "We have no respect for the police after this, what they've done to these kids, who are all young kids and all good kids... Police don't know everything," she said. "They didn't even bother to ask them what really happened. They've been really harsh on them." Sex offender review In the commission's discussion paper, which is open for public comment until the end of May, chairwoman Mary Anne Kenny said that a number of cases demonstrated "serious concerns about the fairness of mandatory registration, particularly in the case of children".

"Registration with police as a 'sex offender' and the requirement to report to police (in many cases for a significant number of years) has a considerable impact and is, potentially more stigmatising than the conviction itself," she said. She also suggested that low-level or low-risk adult offenders were unfairly demonised and mandatory registration drained police resources and undermined the goal of community protection. "When I see people that I know and they look at me, I wonder 'do they know? Do they know and are they judging my son?'," Sarah said. "So I don't know if he is feeling that way as well. I am sure he does, wondering who knows and who doesn't know. He's sort of built a protective wall around himself. "...I want to see my son off this register so that he can get on with his life and not have it hanging over his head for the rest of his life.

"To me this (register) is the worst thing of the whole scenario. "He has to report to Juvenile Justice once every month for six months but he can then get on with other things. He sees a psychologist and drug and alcohol counsellor but he likes who he is seeing and he wants to keep going, even after this. "But the reporting to police... It's bigger than Ben-Hur. They have well and truly learnt their lesson, and the crime does not fit punishment." The report found that WA had stricter child sex laws than other states, where in other states consensual sexual activity between two young people, who are similarly aged, was not an offence or that an accused person could defend their position on the grounds that they honestly or reasonably believed the other party was above the age of consent. Being forced to go on a sex offender registration as a teenager or child meant it could:

impact negatively on future rehabilitation as a result of being labelled a "sex offender";

cause further involvement in the criminal justice system as a result of being charged with failing to comply with reporting obligations;

interfere with socially beneficial activities;

dissuade young people from accessing health and support services in relation to their sexual activity;

deter young people and their families from reporting inappropriate sexual behaviour to authorities, and;

encourage young people to deny their offending behaviour in court in order to avoid registration. The commission therefore found that mandatory registration was inappropriate when there was consensual underage sexual activity between two people of a relatively close age gap; for any offender aged 13 and under; historical offences where the offender has not reoffended; and behaviour that was not necessarily sexually motivated, like the sending of explicit photographs via mobile phone or the internet. The decision to put a juvenile offender on the register should be left to the discretion of the court and, in extreme cases, the offender should have the chance to review their registration status after a quantified period of time, the report found. As to adults, the commission favoured allowing an offender the right to argue against registration in exceptional circumstances, such as: making an honest and reasonable mistake about the age of the victim;

ignorance of the law;

young adult offenders (aged 18-21) who have had consensual sexual activity with an older underage child (aged 14-15); and

Intellectually disabled adult offender who engaged in consensual sexual activity with an older underage child where the intellectual and emotional maturity of both parties is similar.

The commission proposed a strict two-stage test for adult offenders which required the offender to "establish that there are exceptional circumstances and that the offender does not pose a risk to the lives or sexual safety of any person". It also suggested a right for review after half of the reporting period was over. After compiling responses and draft recommendations, the commission will make a final report to Parliament towards the end of the year. Loading It will then be up to the Attorney-General Christian Porter to assess whether he will amend the legislation.

Follow WAtoday on Twitter @WAtoday