Thousands of sex offenders in England and Wales are set to be given the right to appeal against having their names on the sex offenders register for life.

A government source told the BBC it had no choice but to adopt the change following a Supreme Court ruling.

It found that not giving offenders the right of appeal was incompatible with their human rights.

Under a review system, offenders would have to prove they no longer pose a risk to the public.

Only individuals sentenced to more than 30 months for a sex-related crime are placed on the register for life. There are currently about 20,000 sex offenders in the UK who have received such sentences and they include paedophiles and rapists.

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

The government source said: "We have no choice but to implement the Supreme Court judgement. There is no right of appeal."

...
Analysis

Norman Smith
Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4
The ruling to allow sex offenders the right to have their names removed from the sex offenders register is one of those issues governments dread.

It almost guarantees them sackloads of irate letters and coruscating tabloid headlines.

And yet the inevitable row might not be as painful as ministers fear.

Firstly, unlike the recent judgement on prisoners' votes, it does not involve the toxic issue of Europe. This was a decision made by Britain's Supreme Court - not the European Court of Human Rights.

Secondly, it's not clear whether any change in the way the register is managed would require primary legislation, avoiding the possibility of a protracted Parliamentary tussle.

And lastly the Scottish government has already implemented the change without suffering undue damage.
...

Last year, two convicted sex offenders used human rights laws to challenge the system and won the right to appeal against their inclusion on the register.

The two offenders were a teenager convicted of rape and a 59-year-old man guilty of indecent assault.

The teenage boy, known only as F, had been jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, for raping a six-year-old boy.

The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson who was jailed in 1996 for five years.

Both the offenders said permanent inclusion on the sex offenders register with no chance of a review was a disproportionate interference in their family lives.

In the case of F, he said he had been prevented from taking a family holiday abroad and from playing rugby league.

At the time, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It is obvious that 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 can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified."

The BBC's political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the ruling meant ministers were now "committed to introducing a review process".

Child protection expert
"They were due to bring proposals forward around now to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but government sources have told the BBC an appeal system won't be introduced to Parliament until the spring," he said.

He added the move was likely to infuriate backbenchers on both sides of the Commons who last week registered their disapproval over plans to give prisoners the vote in elections following legal decisions based on human rights laws.

A Home Office spokesman said a draft order needed to be laid down and the proposals debated in Parliament, but there was no timetable for this at the moment.

Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police officer who worked in child protection, is concerned about the decision particularly in relation to child sex offenders.

"These people are like leopards, they don't change their spots," he said.

"These people are very devious. What we will end up with is potentially a very dangerous situation where someone has committed offences in the past and be able to say they haven't committed any new offences and therefore don't present a risk.

"But they are a risk in the same way as an alcoholic is always an alcoholic."

Lyn Costello, of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said: "People are up in arms that we're not going to know where paedophiles are.

"I keep saying to people, it only gives them right to apply. Please God, we have sensible judiciary in this country who will say actually no, you're staying on it."

The Scottish government has already brought forward plans to allow convicted adults to seek a review after 15 years on the sex offenders register.

Also those placed on the register when under 18 years old can seek a review after eight years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979

We seriously need to pull out of this EU human rights BS.

We could then easily write the good bits into our own laws and ditch the rest.

They've only been given a right of appeal though, they have to prove that they are no longer a danger.

I'm sorry, but if you;re found guilty of a crime like that, you should be on there for life.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

While I agree re the "If you cant....... etc" if we are not going to lock them up for life then I think that there needs to be a mechanisum to be able to take people off who can prove that they are no longer a risk

They might have the right of appeal but it does not mean that they will come off the register. Though some should be on it for life if they abused their position such as teachers or policemen.

'You can't prove a negative', eh?....

personally i would like to see most of these people dead
and yes i support the death penalty, they would be unable to 'ever' commit the crime again

i always think of the victim, i have no time for the perpetrator
once a nonce, always a nonce ...

Well maybe after a considerable period of time.

What's wrong with giving them the right to appeal?

As has been said that doesn't mean they'll necessarily come off the register, but TBH if there are people who have genuinely reformed their behaviour I don't see a problem. Besides - some of the people on that register are on there for mistakes made as teenagers.

Good.

As far as I can tell, there seem to be a few people asserting the sentiments of 'a leopard doesn't change it's spots'. I am just interested to know on what such an idea is based, I.E. has there been some research done that confirms it, rather than just being based on a series of anecdotes.

Do you think it likely that your sexual preference is likely to change in the future?
Yes, I appreciate there are instances of married men and women with kids coming out, but I'd suggest that's a product of trying to conform to societal norms at the detriment of their own personal validation. Chances are they've always been gay, but chose to attempt to ignore it.
I'd suggest that pedophilia, like any other sexual mores, isn't something that goes away with time.

I wasn't suggesting that the sexual preference might change. I was wondering more whether the predatory nature/the willingness to act on the feeling might change.

There are some cases which should come off. So it should never be a permanent register. Though I do feel that many will be on their permanently because they are still a danger.