The Court considered whether the notification requirements of the UK sex offenders’ registration scheme constitute a penalty for the purposes of Article 7 or infringed the applicant’s rights under Article 8.
Held: They did not. As to article 8: ‘The Court notes that the applicant has referred to newspaper reports of vigilante attacks on paedophiles following their identification by the press and television. However, there is no evidence before it to suggest that these attacks were connected in any way with the registration of the offenders in question with the police or that the requirement to register will lead to information which is not already publicly available becoming known to the media or the general public. Again, having regard to the preamble to the Act and also to the nature of the Act’s requirements, the Court considers that the purpose of the measures in question is to contribute towards a lower rate of reoffending in sex offenders, since a person’s knowledge that he is registered with the police may dissuade him from committing further offences and since, with the help of the register, the police may be enabled to trace suspected reoffenders faster.
. . . The Court considers that the requirement on the applicant to provide the information in question to the police amounts to an interference with his private life within the meaning of Article 8 ss 1 (see, for example, with reference to the taking and retention of photographs and other data by law enforcement authorities, the Murray v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, pp. 34-35, ssss 84-86). It is therefore necessary for the Court to examine whether it is justified under the terms of the second paragraph of Article 8.
Since the measures in question are set out in clear terms under the Act, it cannot be doubted that they are ‘in accordance with the law’. Furthermore, the Court considers that the measures pursue legitimate aims, namely the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It remains to be decided whether they are ‘necessary in a democratic society’, that is, proportionate to the aims pursued.
In this connection the Court refers to its above finding that there is no evidence before it to suggest that the applicant is at particular risk of public humiliation or attack as a result of his obligations under the Act. Thus, it will examine the proportionality of the impugned measures on the basis that the interference with private life in issue in the present case extends only to the requirement to register with the police.
The Court notes that the Act requires the applicant, upon being released from prison, to inform the police of inter alia his name, any other names he uses, his date of birth and his home address, and, during an indeterminate period, to notify them of any subsequent changes of name or home address within 14 days of any change.
It is necessary to weigh against this the importance of the aims pursued by the Act. The Court has previously referred to the gravity of the harm which may be caused to the victims of sexual offences (see the Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1505, ss 64) and has held that States are under a duty under the Convention to take certain measures to protect individuals from such grave forms of interference (ibid., ssss 62 and 64).
Against this background, the Court does not consider that the requirement to provide information to the police can be said to be disproportionate to the aims pursued.’
Citations:
(1999) 28 EHRR CD209
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 7
Citing:
Cited – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 26-Jul-2005
The defendant argued that the 2003 Act was in breach of his article 8 rights. He had been registered as a sex offender, but the offence for which he had been convicted involved no proof of intention.
Held: The claimant having brought the . .
Cited – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230378