“Follow the money” powers do not breach sex offenders’ privacy rights

18 September 2013 by

woman_with_hand_over_mouthR (on the application of) Christopher Prothero v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2013] EWHC 2830 (Admin) 18 September 2013 – read judgment

This was a challenge to regulations  introduced in 2012 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which require a person on the Sex Offenders Register to provide details of bank, debit or credit card accounts held by him. The claimant sought a declaration that this particular regulation was incompatible with his right to respect for private life under  Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The last time the notification requirements under the 2003 Act came under attack, the Supreme court held that they were capable of causing significant interference with the Article 8 rights of an offender on the register (R (F)(a Child)) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17) – see our post on that case and its consequences.

The Home Secretary subsequently amended the Act to provide for a review of the indefinite notification requirements; under s.91B  an offender in the position of the claimant became entitled to seek a review of the notification requirements 15 years after the date on which he was first required to notify. That amendment was not currently relevant for the claimant.

After public consultation the Secretary of State introduced the regulation requiring disclosure of bank details, in order to “significantly enhance the ability of the police to promptly trace an individual who failed to comply with notification requirements”. However, since it had been established that notification requirements under the Act engaged the Article 8 rights of the individual on the Register, it was incumbent on the government to show that such a measure would achieve the policy aim that it aspired to achieve and would not simply act as a penalty on the offender.

The information about the offenders’ bank accounts, credit and debit cards is securely held and the possession by the police and other authorities of this information does not entitle them to examine the details of the bank account or credit card transactions. Moreover the details about credit cards do not include the security code so no one is able to avail themselves of this information. The Court therefore considered that though this did amount to an interference with the claimant’s privacy, it was not as significant as other notification requirements. It was of importance to note that access to bank accounts and debit and credit card transactions is not ordinarily permitted without the intervention of a court order.

But the essence of the dispute between the claimant and the Secretary of State turned upon the question of how valuable these particular notification requirements were in achieving the legitimate aim of public protection. Whilst the claimant accepted that the provision of card details would enable the police to trace an offender who had moved without notifying them of his new address, they had other statutory powers for obtaining similar information from bank and credit and debit card institutions.

The Court found that these measures were not inappropriate or disproportionate in relation to their aim – the ability to trace an offender quickly, to guard against the risk of an offender using another identity or to have a means of obtaining quick access to a credit card account to investigate offences in relation to indecent images. The other avenue open to the police, by applying for a court order to obtain information from banks,  would be time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, if the offender had changed the name under which he operated the account, the difficulties facing the police would be more considerable:

By having details of the bank or other institution at which the offender held an account, the police would quickly be able to trace, by seeking appropriate orders. Any subsequent change of identity could be discovered by the well tested route of “following the money”.

Since it was satisfied that satisfied that the Regulations are not incompatible with the Convention, the Court declined to make a declaration of incompatibility.

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

Related posts:


  1. stewart says:

    Besides the annual notification requirements how would the police become aware of any other failure to notify? eg surely someone who failed to comply with the notification requirements would not be averse to additionally not complying with them in relation to disclosure of every bank account they held and so they would open one or more furtively or use money sourced elsewhere if they wished to disappear. Also where is the evidence that failure to notify is a widespread problem?

  2. Andrew says:

    A good judgment and the right result.

    But wait for another case involving a joint account – with the wife or the business partner as the claimant. That might well go the other way.

    And I notice with interest that if the offender – or that should be ex-offender – incorporates a company its account will not be covered. Only unincorporated associations are. Which is as it should be; a company is another person in law and is not the offender. But nowadays one person can form a company – with unlimited liability if he chooses – which drives a coach and horses through the whole scheme, doesn’t it?

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 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 evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: