R (JF and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Dyson |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 792 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2009/0091 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 July 2009 |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Hooper
The absence of a right of review at any time of notification requirements imposed upon offenders who had been placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life. The case for granting a declaration of incompata bility was even stronger in the case of young offenders than of adult offenders.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the Secretary of State for Justice, in F's case, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in Thompson's case, from the decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Underhill and Mr Justice Flaux)TLR (The Times January 23, 2009; [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 325) granting declarations of incompatability under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the ground that the notification requirements regarding travel plans imposed upon the claimants, F and Angus Aubrey Thompson, when they were placed on the sex offenders register following their convictions for sexual offences, were inconsistent with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and incompatible with their right to respect for family and private life under article 8 and inconsisted with article 4 of Directive 2004/38/EC (OJ April 30, 2004 No L158/77).
Mr Hugh Southey for F; Mr Tim Owen, QC and Mr Peter Weatherby for Thompson; Mr Jeremy Johnson for the secretaries of state.
LORD JUSTICE DYSON said that it was common ground that the provisions of section 82(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 interfered with an offender's article 8 rights, that the interference was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate objective.
There was no authority binding on the Court of Appeal which decided the question whether the imposition of indefinite notification requirements without the possibility of review was itself a disproportionate interference with an offender's article 8 rights.
Although for some offenders the notification requirements might be a modest interference with those rights, for others it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (JF and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...UKSC 17 THE SUPREME COURT Easter Term On appeal from: 2009 EWCA Civ 792 Lord Phillips, President Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Rodger Lady Hale Lord Clarke R (on the application of F (by his litigation friend F)) and Thompson (FC) (Respondents) and Secretary of State for the Home Departm......
-
(first) The Christian Institute, (second) Family Education Trust, (third) The Young Me Sufferers ("tymes"), (fourth) Care (christian Action Research And Education), (fifth) And (sixth) James And Rhianwen Mcintosh And (seventh) Deborah Thomas Against The Scottish Ministers
...could be assessed by considering how the law might apply (R (on the application of JF) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 1 WLR 76, at paras 30 and 33). The “mere” conferral of statutory functions, which abrogated to the state functions that, in a democratic state, should b......
-
R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others (Liberty and another intervening)
...of State in the argument before the Supreme Court in R (F). But it was made before the Court of Appeal whose decision is reported at [2009] EWCA Civ 792, [2010] 1 WLR 76. It was submitted that the vast majority of those who were subject to the indefinite notification regime would seek a r......
-
The Queen (on the application of Paul McAtee) v The Secretary of State for Justice
...requirement under the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: R (F) (A Child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 1 WLR 76; [2011] 1 AC 331. Finally, in R (Minter) v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary [2014] 1 WLR 179 it had been held that an issue as to whether ......
-
An End to Indefinite Notification Requirements without Review for Sex Offenders?
...Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University and Barrister of the North EasternCircuit; e-mail: christopher.rose@northumbria.ac.uk.1 [2009] EWCA Civ 792, CA (Civ Div), [2008] EWHC 3170 (Admin).480 The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL Act and the Sexual Offences Act 1956, will be subject t......
-
Legal Commentary: Children on the Sex Offenders Register: Proportionality, Prospect of Change and Article 8 Rights
...the Secretary of State’s appeal against the Divisional Court’s declaration of incompatibility. In dismissing the appeal the Court ([2009] EWCA Civ 792) rejected the argument that it would be wrong to grant a declaration because the two claimants had not produced evidence that their specifi......
-
The Growth and Permanency of Criminal Records with Particular Reference to Juveniles
...for those whose cases resulted in a sentence of detention orimprisonment for 30 months or more has also been successfullychallenged ([2009] EWCA Civ 792) and will also require legis-lative change (see Stone, 2009).5. These were: (1) the record contained a conviction for an offenceinvolving,......
-
Disproportionate Registration Revisited
...Appeal (Civil Division)Disproportionate Registration RevisitedR (on the application of F and Thompson) v Secretary of State for Justice[2009] EWCA Civ 792Keywords Sex offender; Notification requirements; Human rights; Pro-portionality; Indefinite durationF was 11 years old when he committ......