A brit Legfelsőbb Bíróság döntése a szexuális bűncselekmények elkövetőivel kapcsolatban

A brit Legfelsőbb Bíróság az R (JF (by his litigation friend OF)) & Anor v SSHD [2010] UKSC 17 ügyben a következő kérdésre kellett, hogy döntést hozzon:

Sexual offences can inflict harm whose consequences persist throughout the lives of their victims and some sexual offenders never lose their predisposition to commit sexual offences. Section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) imposes on all who are sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment or more for a sexual offence the duty to keep the police notified of where they are living and of travel abroad. This duty persists until the day they die. There is no right to a review of the notification requirements. These appeals raise the question of whether the absence of any right to a review renders the notification requirements incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Phillips, akinek véleményéhez Lady Hale és Lord Clarke csatlakozott (Lord Roberts "párhuzamos véleményéhez" Lord Hale csatlakozott), a következőképp fogalmazta meg az eldöntendő kérdést (paras 41-58):

41. The issue in this case is one of proportionality. It is common ground that the notification requirements interfere with offenders’ article 8 rights, that this interference is in accordance with the law and that it is directed at the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The issue is whether the notification requirements, as embodied in the 2003 Act, and without any right to a review, are proportionate to that aim. That issue requires consideration of three questions. (i) What is the extent of the interference with article 8 rights? (ii) How valuable are the notification requirements in achieving the legitimate aims? and (iii) To what extent would that value be eroded if the notification requirements were made subject to review?

A bírók a felüvizsgálat lehetőségének kizárását aránytalanul nagy jogkorlátozásnak ítélték, és az inkriminált törvényhelyet a Human Rights Act-tel ellentétesnek nyilvánították (declaration of incompatibility).