Share it

On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 792.

The claimants submitted that to impose notification requirements for an indefinite period without the possibility of review under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 82, was a disproportionate interference with their rights under ECHR, art 8.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal and repeated the declaration of incompatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998, s 4 made by the lower courts.  It was 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 could be discounted to the extent that the continuance of the notification requirements was unjustified.

For judgment, please download: [2010] UKSC 17
For the Court’s press summary, please download: Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII