Sex Offenders Register in UK Law

It follows that, if and so far as the judge in the present case heard submissions and purported to determine whether any and what notification requirements arose under the 1997 Act consequent upon the orders of conditional discharge which he made, he had no power to do so.

However, we do not consider that that failure to warn of the consequences of a reprimand or a final warning could render the decision to reprimand or administer a final warning unlawful as a matter of domestic law. The pre-conditions set out in the Act and the Guidance in effect at the time were met in "R's" case. And the Scheme, as defined by the Act and the guidance does not require the young offender's consent.

Prima facie, therefore, the claimants were entitled to a fair trial of the allegations made against them attended by all the guarantees which are required by the Convention. There is, however, no doubt that that is not an absolute right. The police would have been entitled to decide not to prosecute and discontinue the proceeding: see Deweer at paragraph 49.

The same principle has been recognised and applied in English case law. As Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC observed in R (L) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2010] 1 AC 410, para 27, even public information such as a criminal conviction may become part of a person's private life once it recedes into the past and other people are likely to have forgotten about it.

That is so, as the court explained in MM, because of the cumulative effect of the failure to draw any distinction on the basis of the nature of the offence, the disposal in the case, the time which has elapsed since the offence took place or the relevance of the data to the employment sought, and the absence of any mechanism for independent review of a decision to disclose data under section 113A.

On 16 August 2006 the claimant pleaded guilty at Reading Crown Court to six offences of taking indecent photographs of a child, five offences of voyeurism and one of indecent assault. On 17 November 2006 he was sentenced in respect of the most serious of those offences to an extended sentence of 4 1/2 years, comprising a custodial term of 18 months and an extension period of 3 years, pursuant to s.85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 ("the PCC(S)A 2000").

The materials before the court and other matters well within the knowledge of any court provide sufficient evidence that the means are both appropriate and proportionate.