Adamson v. the United Kingdom (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 2

January 1999

Adamson v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 42293/98

Decision 26.1.1999

Article 7

Article 7-1

Criminal offence

Compulsory registration for an indeterminate period of sexual offenders after their release: inadmissible

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Registration of sex offenders: inadmissible

In July 1995, the applicant was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, his release being scheduled for October 1998.  In September 1997, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 entered into force.  Pursuant to this Act, the applicant would be required to register with the police for an indefinite period following his release from prison.  The applicant expressed his fear that such a registration might put him and his family at risk.

Inadmissible under Article 7: The concept of “penalty” in this provision is an autonomous one.  The issue was whether the passing of the Act and its impact on the applicant could be considered as a “penalty”.  The starting point of the determination of a “penalty” is whether it was imposed following conviction for a “criminal offence”.  The other criteria are the characterisation under domestic law, its nature and purpose, the procedure involved in its making and implementation and its severity.  In the present case, there was a link between the conviction and the impugned Act, given that at the time of its entry into force the applicant was serving a prison sentence for a sexual offence.  As to the domestic characterisation, the Act specifies that the requirements do not go beyond the mere obligation to give the authorities information.  The purpose of these measures is to lower the rate of reoffending, since a person’s knowledge that he is registered may dissuade him from committing further offences knowing that with this register the police may easily trace suspected reoffenders.  The measures at stake are imposed as a matter of law, with no additional procedure, following conviction of a sexual offence.  The obligation to notify the police of the information required by the Act cannot be regarded in itself as being severe, and the applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that he would be put at risk that way.  Overall, it cannot be said that the measures imposed amounted to a “penalty”, given that these measures operate completely separately from the ordinary sentencing procedures, and the fact that they do not require more than mere registration: incompatible ratione materiae.

Inadmissible under Article 8:  The requirement on the applicant to provide information to the police amounts to an interference with his private life.  These measures pursue legitimate aims, namely the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.  The Act requires the applicant to inform the police upon release from prison of inter alia his names, the other names he may use, his date of birth and his home address, and during an indefinite period, to notify them of any subsequent changes of name or home address within 14 days.  Taking into consideration the gravity of the harm that might be caused to victims of sexual offences and the fact that States have a duty to take the necessary measures to protect individuals from such grave forms of violence, the requirement to provide information cannot be deemed disproportionate to the aims pursued: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy