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 proceedings, his name was not to be withheld. The substantial point was that the defendant had been convicted of importing indecent material. If he had merely been convicted of possession but had not been shown to have known known the nature of what he possessed, he would not be subject to registration: ‘A person who is convicted of an offence under 170(2)(b) of CEMA that is a sexual offence must have been aware that the goods were prohibited and, if he did not know that they were obscene, at the very least took a chance as to the nature of those goods. The rationale of the reporting restrictions is that there is a risk that someone who has offended may do so again, and that the harm done by sexual offences is so great as to justify the interference with personal liberty and integrity that they involve.’
Judges:
Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1597 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Forbes (Giles) HL 20-Jul-2001
The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which . .
Cited – Adamson v United Kingdom ECHR 1999
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 . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Cited – De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
Cited – Gallagher, Re an Application By for Judicial Review QBNI 9-Apr-2003
The applicant had been convicted of offences of indecent assault. He contended that the notification requirements of the 1997 Act infringed his rights under Article 8.
Held: The court rejected the claim: ‘The task of deciding whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229281