Will the Sex Offenders’ Register “Review Mechanism” breach human rights law?

12 July 2011 by

Updated | In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a mechanism should be put in place to review whether convicted sex offenders should remain liable after their release from prison to notify the police of where they live or plans to travel abroad. In June 2011, the government published draft legislation to “ensure that strict rules are put in place for considering whether individuals should ever be removed from the register.” However, it is possible that the “strict rules” leave the government vulnerable to further legal challenges.

To recap (see also Adam Wagner’s post), section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 places those convicted of a sexual offence and imprisoned for at least 30 months under a life-long obligation once released from prison to notify the police when changing address and travelling abroad (“the notification requirements”). The Supreme Court ruled that the notification requirements violated sex offenders’ Article 8 rights to a private life and issued a declaration of incompatibility.

by Graeme Hall

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Phillips discussed the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the two cases described as being of the “greatest relevance” was S and Marper v UK. In S and Marper, the European Court found that the blanket, indiscriminate and indefinite retention of DNA samples of those suspected, but not convicted, of criminal offences, breached their Article 8 rights. Lord Phillips quoted paragraph 119 of S and Marper:

… in particular, there is no provision for independent review of the justification for the retention according to defined criteria, including such factors as the seriousness of the offence, previous arrests, the strength of the suspicion against the person and any other special circumstances.”

The other case of importance was Bouchacourt v France, itself concerning similar facts to those before the Supreme Court. Here, the European Court found no violation of Article 8 because sex offenders could appeal against their automatic inclusion on the sexual and violent offenders’ register to the prosecutor, then to the juge des libertés et de la détention, and then to the president of the investigating chamber. According to Lord Phillips’ unofficial translation of this judgment, the European Court considered that:

“68. … [T]his judicial procedure for removing the information ensures independent review of the justification for the retention of the information according to defined criteria (S and Marper, already cited, para 119) and provides adequate and sufficient safeguards in relation to respect for private life, with regard to the seriousness of the offences justifying registration on the sex offenders’ register.”

Having considered these authorities, the Supreme Court concluded that the life-long notification requirements without review were a disproportionate interference with sex offenders’ Article 8 rights because:

“… it is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified.” (paragraph 57)

The government’s response

On 14 June 2011, the government announced draft legislation. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2011 will insert section 91 (explanatory notes here) which provides that (generally) a sex offender “may apply to the relevant chief officer of police for a determination that [s/he] is no longer subject to the indefinite notification requirements (“an application for review”)”, 15 years after the offender gave his first post-release notification. The subsequent chain of events can be summarized as follows:

a.       The police must make an initial determination of the application within 6 weeks of the latest date on which any responsible authority (such as the prison, social or probation services) provides information

b.      The police must notify the offender of the determination (with reasons if the offender is to remain liable to the notification requirements)

c.       The offender has 28 days after receipt of the determination to make representations

d.      The police have 6 weeks from the date of the offender’s representation to make and notify a second determination including reasons if the offender is to remain subject to the notification requirements.

The issue for discussion

Arguably, the government’s proposals do not establish a sufficiently independent and impartial reviewing mechanism to be compliant with human rights law. The lack of independence may mean that the notification requirements continue to be a disproportionate interference with offenders’ private lives under Article 8. Indeed, this may be the stronger argument considering the Supreme Court’s judgment refers to “an appropriate tribunal” rendering the Article 8 interference proportionate, and that the European Court states judicial procedures suffice to ensure an independent review within the meaning of Article 8. Nonetheless, the focus here will be Article 6: the right to a fair trial. Article 6(1) provides:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Do the proposals constitute a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6?

Domestically, although the Supreme Court did not explicitly find a violation on the basis that there was no “right to review” (Lord Phillips refers to there being “no provision for individual review” (paragraph 58); Lord Rogers refers to the need for legislation to have “some provision for reviewing” (paragraph 66)); references to a “right to review” are peppered throughout the judgment. Deciding whether something constitutes a “right” within the meaning of the Convention can, however, be complex (see Rosalind English’s previous post). Although the draft legislation does not explicitly refer to the ability to apply for a review as a “right”, this does not mean that it cannot be characterized as such:

89. [T]he concept of “civil rights and obligations” is autonomous … Whether or not a right is to be regarded as civil within the meaning of this expression in the Convention must be determined by reference to the substantive content and effects of the right – and not its legal classification – under the domestic law of the State concerned.

94.              … All that is relevant under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention is the fact that the object of the cases in question is the determination of rights of a private nature. (König v Germany)

Given that the application for review can only be exercised by the individual offender, and it concerns whether or not that individual remains subject to notification requirements, it is in both substance and effect of a personal or, private, nature. Combined with the wording of the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is suggested that the UK courts would view the “application for review” outlined in the Amendment Order as a “right”. On this assumption, the next consideration is whether the government’s proposals comply with the safeguards within Article 6.

Do the government’s proposals constitute an independent and impartial tribunal?

In Bryan v UK  the European Court stated:

37. In order to establish whether a body can be considered “independent”, regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of appointment of its members and to their term of office, to the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and to the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence

The government’s proposals charge the “relevant chief officer of police” with the responsibility to decide whether an offender should cease to be subject to the indefinite notification requirements. Thus, the individual charged with the protection of the public is the very same individual who is to decide whether a sex offender is no longer required to notify the police of his whereabouts. On its face, the proposed review mechanism is neither independent nor impartial.

The draft legislation also does not include a mechanism to appeal the decision of the relevant police officer to any judicial authority. The only requirement is that reasons must be given if the application for review is negative. The government obviously has in mind that the decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review (see our cut-out-and-keep-guide to judicial review). Whilst appeal by way of judicial review can be sufficient to satisfy Article 6, as Lord Hoffman stated in R(Begum) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, the initial decision-making process needs to be “fair” at the very least.

Given that the government’s proposals render the relevant police officer a Janus-faced arbiter whose duty to protect the public irreconcilably conflicts with the duty to independently and impartially assess the sex offenders’ right to a review, it is difficult to regard the proposals as fair. Accordingly, the government could well be  leaving itself vulnerable to further human rights challenges which could cause even more ill-feeling.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has invited submissions on this issue by 19 July 2011 – click here for more information, and here for the committee’s letter to the Home Secretary asking for more information on the proposed order.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

4 comments


  1. Baz says:

    What about those falsely convicted, this is not as simple as some posters believe.

  2. seb says:

    Isn’t the difficulty really in finding an independent body with sufficient expertise to make the decision?

    I’m sure nobody wants a situation where the police make representations to an independent body which amount to “This person in our expert view should absolutely not be removed from this list” only for an independent body to reach a different conclusion. The only situation where the police reasoning behind the refusal would need to be challenged is where the reasoning is wrong, in which case the correct course for the petitioner would be JR.

    Interesting read, keep up the good work.

  3. ObiterJ says:

    I agree. A serious flawed remedial order. Regrettably, all too typical of the trend within government to hand more power over individuals to the Police.

    In these cases, Police should be confined to being able to make representations to an independent judicial tribunal. Maybe the tribunal could be something along the lines of a Circuit Judge sitting with two others – similar perhaps to certain parole board hearings. Appeal beyond that on point of law only.

  4. amear says:

    We have put them on the list because
    of the rights of the victim and there have broke the law ie crime and you can’t trust them its not like there not guilty we have the rights of the kids to think of and if it was kid it happens to you would be sad and think the law has let you down when the is law to protect you from the sick evil nonces

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: