Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93
January 2007
R. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 33506/05
Decision 4.1.2007 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Police warning to a schoolboy for indecent assault on girls at his school: article 6 not applicable
The applicant, then aged 15, was arrested and cautioned on suspicion of indecent assault following a complaint by girls at his school. He admitted to actions amounting to indecent assault in respect of some girls and was released pending a further assessment of the case. The police finally decided to deal with him by issuing a warning under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. A consequence of the warning was that he would be required to sign the Sex Offenders Register. In the case of indecent assault, the registration is valid for two and a half years. The applicant complained that he had been subject to a public declaration of guilt by an administrative process to which he had not consented. The question arose at domestic level whether Article 6 of the Convention applied to the issue of a warning. The proceedings ended with a decision denying any penal or punitive element to the warning procedure after it was noted that the consequence of the recording of a final warning on the Police National Computer was far from a public announcement or declaration of guilt, as access was limited to a relatively small number of police, prison and probation officers and agencies fulfilling public functions. Access to the Sex Offenders' Register was similarly controlled and in neither case did members of the public have access.
Inadmissible – The Court noted that the police had decided not to prosecute, and the applicant had been so informed; instead they had issued a warning to the applicant in respect of the offences he had admitted. Under domestic law, a warning was not a criminal conviction. Its purpose was largely preventive and did not pursue the aims of retribution and deterrence, and no fine or restriction of liberty was imposed. The applicant had been required to sign a register and referred to the youth offending team in order to determine whether or not an intervention programme should be provided, measures which the Court found to be preventive in nature. Therefore, the warning applied to the applicant did not involve the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6(1). Nor did it involve any public official declaration of guilt of a criminal offence which could offend against Article 6(2): incompatible ratione materiae.
© 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