A, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 (30 July 2021)
Citation:A, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 (30 July 2021).
Subjects invoked: 18. 'Human rights (general)'.10. 'Jurisprudence'.106. 'Information'.
Rule of thumb:What rights do sex-offenders have when information requests are made about them? Only the most basic ones which do not have to be codified in statute - they have the right to be told that the information request and has been put in & they have the right to make submissions against about any potentianl inaccuracies in what is sent out.
Background facts:
Although this was a fairly simple case based on the facts, this case was fairly complicated legally and established important fundamental points of law, and it invoked the law subjects of (i) jurisprudence, (ii) human rights general, (iii) the human right to privacy and family life, and (iv) information law.
The facts of this case are that A was/is a convicted sex offender. The public are allowed to do freedom of information requests to find out if any convicted sex offenders live in their area. However, freedom of information law ensures that convicted sex offenders, like A, must have a chance to make representations to police and information authorities before police and information authorities send information out to members of the public after information requests. This is done to ensure that the information that they are providing about sex offenders is fair and accurate.
It was A who brought about this change in the information laws. A successfully argued to the UK Supreme Court in the past that convicted sex offenders should have this opportunity to make representations to help prevent inaccurate information being given out about them, and it was a human rights violation not to do so, namely a breach of both Article 8 and Article 3. A explained that false information being given out could put them in danger of being attacked, and the UK Supreme Court accepted A’s arguments about this. In response to A’s UK Supreme Court victory, the Government issued policy guidance, a secondary source of law, stating that police and information authorities had to contact convicted sex offenders before giving out information so that they could make representations about it. However, A argued that this response was not strong enough and did not provide sex-offenders with clear enough rights to rely on if this was not done, and the matter reached Court again.
A argued that the procedures the police and information authorities should follow, as well as the format and method for contacting convicted sex offenders had to be better, and it could still result in serious mistakes and lead to sex-offenders being attacked based upon wrong information. A argued that due to this right only being a secondary source, their rights to compensation if they were attacked on the basis of false information was virtually non-existent. A argued that it was still in violation of Article 3 and Article 8. The Government argued that the new system introduced was fundamentally functional, and did result in convicted sex offenders having a chance to put their representations across. They argued that the people who responded to the information requests were properly trained, and convicted sex offenders did have the chance to respond, which meant that the system was fundamentally functional. The Government argued that a system which was fundamentally functional, though not perfect, was not a human rights violation.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of the Government in this matter. The Court upheld that the current freedom of information system in relation to sex-offenders – based on both primary and secondary sources of law - was not a violation of sex-offenders Article 8 rights. The Court affirmed that the secondary sources requiring sex-offenders to be consulted in the information provision process provided sufficient legal rights in order to protect their Article 8 rights, and this right to consultation did not have to be entrenched as a statute to make the system Article 8 compliant. The Court also affirmed that on this occasion A was not able to show sufficiently strong examples of false/misleading information about sex offenders being given out without sex offenders having had a chance to be properly consulted to correct this. In short, the current system for the provision of information about convicted sex offenders was deemed to be human rights compliant and A’s arguments were not upheld.
Ratio-decidendi:
''
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.