Sex offender ruling prompts ‘imminent’ human rights review
A ruling on sex offenders has prompted an “imminent” reappraisal of the Britain’s acceptance of the Human Rights Act, the prime minister has said.
Sex offenders are to be given the right to appeal their placement on the sex offenders register for life, following a supreme court ruling.
The decision – the latest in a series of human rights issues forced on the government by the courts – seems to have triggered a new resolve to move towards a British bill of rights rather than abide by European human rights legislation.
The government will introduce new proposals to accommodate the supreme court ruling, which argued that denying sex offenders the right to appeal was an infringement of their human rights.
Home secretary Theresa May said the government was “disappointed and appalled” by the court’s ruling and would make the “minimum possible” changes to the law.
“The government is appalled by this ruling – it places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending – but there is no possibility of further appeal,” she said.
“This government is determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders.”
The home secretary said the government would create a “tougher scheme” than that in Scotland, where the government has already moved towards giving sex offenders the opportunity to appeal after 15 years on the register.
Ms May said sex offenders would be able to apply for a review 15 years after their release but she emphasised this would not be automatic.
She said reviews would be led by the police, not the courts, and the police’s final decision would not be subject to further appeal.
The government will also close loopholes in the current law. Sex offenders will have to notify the police if they travel abroad even for one day, they will have to inform the authorities if they are living in a house with a child under the age of 18, they will remain on the register if they change their name by deed poll and they will have to report to the police every week if have no fixed address.
Asked about the ruling during PMQs this week, David Cameron said he was tired of courts contravening “common sense” and that a commission into a British bill of rights would be “imminent”.
Tinkering with Britain’s commitment to the Human Rights Act could seriously undermine the coalition however. Several Liberal Democrat ministers have said they would resign from government if the UK pulled out of its human rights commitments.
The home secretary confirmed that the deputy prime minister and justice secretary will launch a commission to investigate a British bill of rights to reassert parliament’s authority.
“For it is time to assert that it is parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these,” she said.
Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, asked the government to ensure new laws were strict.
“It is vital for the safety and protection of the public that the new system must be extremely tough,” she said.
Ms Cooper also warned that government funding cuts to police forces could put specialist units that handle the cases of sex offenders “under the greatest pressure”.
Under current law, names, addresses, dates of birth and national insurance numbers are stored indefinitely for anyone sentenced to 30 months or more in prison for a sex offence.
Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg told London’s LBC radio earlier today the government had to abide by the ruling, but would not “weaken” checks on sex offenders.
“The last thing I want to see is people who have committed serious sexual offences disappear off the radar screen.
“We have some of the toughest and best checks and controls on sex offenders anywhere in the world and we are not going to let our guard down.”
At the time of the ruling last year, Lord Phillips, president of the court, said it was obvious there were some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of a further sexual offence could be discounted.
The ruling came after two sex offenders took their case to the high court and won the right to challenge their placement on the register.
One of the complainants was a teenage boy convicted of rape and a 59-year-old man convicted of indecent assault, who both said their inclusion on the register was disproportionate. The changes to the law would apply to England and Wales.
This is the second human rights ruling the government has been forced to accommodate in recent weeks.
Only last week, MPs defied the European court of human rights and voted against a ruling that said prisoners should get the vote. The move to comply with the supreme court ruling on sex offenders is expected to prompt further anger on the backbenches.
