The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of R (F and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17 on 21st April 2010. The case concerned the notification requirements imposed on sexual offenders by section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 c. 42 (the “2003 Act”).

The two respondents had been convicted of sexual offences that triggered the notification requirements imposed by the 2003 Act. As such, they were now subject to a duty to notify the police of their address and any plans for travelling abroad. This duty was not susceptible to review, and was to be in effect until the respondents’ deaths. In the Court of Appeal hearing, 2010] 1 WLR 76, the respondents had successfully argued that the notification requirements had interfered with their rights under article 8 of schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 c. 42.

The Supreme Court considered the domestic and Strasbourg case law such as Gallagher (Kevin), In re [2003] NIQB 26 and Stubbings and others v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 213. In the present case, the issue was whether the notification requirements were proportionate to the stated aim of preventing crime as well as protecting the rights of others.

Dismissing the appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Supreme Court stated that the requirements imposed by the 2003 Act were a disproportionate interference with the respondents’ rights. The failure to provide for individual review in the way other jurisdictions was incompatible with article 8.