Sex offenders must wait 15 years to appeal register

Paedophiles and rapists will only be able to apply to have their names removed from the sex offenders register 15 years after their release from prison, Home Secretary Theresa May said today.

Mrs May said the Government was obliged to act on a Supreme Court ruling but would only make the "minimal possible changes to the law".

She said a commission would be launched to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights, saying: "It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts."

Police will have the final decision on whether a sex offender should remain on the register and there will be no right of appeal against a decision to keep an offender on the register, Mrs May said.

"Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life, if necessary," she said.

Home Office officials are preparing new rules after failing to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that it is a breach of offenders' human rights to be put on the register for life with no review.

Mrs May said: "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 reoffending, 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, and so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with this ruling."

She added: "I want to make clear that the court's ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders' register."

Mrs May confirmed a commitment to establish a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights, which was in the coalition Government's manifesto.

"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,

The Home Secretary added the Government was taking action to close four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register.

Offenders will be forced to report to the authorities before travelling abroad, even for one day, and will have to tell the authorities if they are living in a household with children under 18.

Sex offenders with no fixed address will have to tell authorities weekly where they can be found and rules will be tightened so they can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their name by deed poll.

Earlier, Prime Minister David Cameron said the court ruling "seems to fly completely in the face of common sense".

"Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life as they do now, I would say has broad support right across this House and right across the country," he said.

"So I am appalled by the Supreme Court ruling. We will take the minimum possible approach to this ruling and we will use the opportunity to close down some loopholes in the sex offenders register.

"For instance we are going to make it compulsory that they report to the authorities before any travel, and also that sex offenders cannot change their name by deed poll to avoid having their name on the register.

"I can also tell my honorary friend that the commission we are establishing to look at a British Bill of Rights will be established imminently, because I think it is about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts."

When the ruling was given last April, the president of the court, Lord Phillips, said it was obvious there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence could be discounted.

Two convicted sex offenders went to the High Court in 2008 where three judges ruled that their "indefinite" registration with no right of review was "incompatible" with their rights to privacy.

This decision, won by a teenager referred to as JF, and Angus Thompson from Newcastle, was upheld by three judges at the Court of Appeal in 2009.

JF was convicted of two offences of rape of a child under 13 and other sexual offences. He was 11 at the time of the assaults.

In October 2005 he was sentenced to 30 months' detention by Liverpool Crown Court and released on licence in January 2007.

Mr Thompson was sentenced in November 1996 to five years' imprisonment on two counts of indecent assault on a female and other offences of actual bodily harm. He was released in April 2000.

Currently anyone sentenced to at least 30 months in prison for a sexual offence is placed on the register for life.

They have to notify the police of their personal details, any change of address and when they travel abroad for more than three days.

Probation union Napo said there will need to be "a very rigorous assessment conducted before an appeal to remove a name from the register is heard".

Harry Fletcher, Napo's assistant general secretary, said: "It is highly likely that very few appeals will be successful.

"Persons placed on the register for life have been convicted of very serious offences. This decision will not diminish public protection."

He added that the sex offender register was "one of a number of tools that the police and probation services have to control the behaviour of relevant offenders".

Others include a sex offender programme, curfews, electronic tagging, medication, lie detectors, supervision and, in extreme cases, surveillance.

Mrs May told MPs she was "concerned" about another decision "when a court is able to make a judgment that puts the rights of the perpetrator above the rights of the public and individual victims".

She said the latest ruling was another example of human rights laws stifling the Government's intentions.

Mrs May added: "I find it incredible we are not able to deport people who are linked to al Qaida, who have terrorist intent in this country, that their rights would mean the court says we can't deport them when the court is not looking at the rights of the members of the British public."

It comes after pressure on the Government to defy a court ruling against the UK blanket ban on prisoners voting intensified when MPs overwhelmingly backed the status quo last week.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve promised to reflect the 234 to 22 decision in what he said would be "a drawn-out dialogue" with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Despite Prime Minister David Cameron declaring that the idea makes him "sick", fears of compensation claims running into millions of pounds have prompted reform plans.

They would see 28,000 inmates serving less than four years being given the vote, although there have been signs that ministers could row back from that position.

Senior Tory MP David Davis - one of the leaders of the Commons debate - has called on the Government to tell the ECHR it cannot "supplant" the role of Parliament.

Today, Tory MP Philip Hollobone said the public was "absolutely fed up to the back teeth with human rights legislation and the way it's being used to promote the rights of bad people over the rights of good people".

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper warned that the new system "must be extremely tough" to have the support of MPs.

MPs had "an obligation" to protect the public, especially children and other vulnerable groups, from sex offenders, she said.

"The depravity and the seriousness of sex offences, and the harm and damage they do to their victims, means the systems we have in place to protect the public must be paramount.

"The priority must now still be public safety and the protection of our young and vulnerable people because these victims of crime have suffered, and continue to suffer, greatly because of the actions of these offenders."

She said that more than 25% of sex offenders went on to commit further serious crimes.

Lyn Costello, of campaign group Mothers Against Murder And Aggression, said the justice system was weighted heavily in favour of the offender.

"It's sad it's come to this," she said.

"What really worries me is how much more is our Government going to be made to do?

"We've had human rights that say prisoners should be allowed to vote, and if we don't allow them to vote we have to pay them compensation.

"I wonder what's next? Are we going to say it's against their human rights to lock them up at all?

"We're playing with people's lives."