"Two convicted paedophiles have won the right to challenge their inclusion on the UK's sex offenders register.
The UK Supreme Court ruling paves the way for other offenders to seek to have their details removed.
The two offenders are a teenager convicted of rape and a man in his 50s guilty of indecent assault.
They argued the register breached their human rights because they could not have their inclusion reviewed, even if they had evidence they had reformed.
Offenders are placed on the register for life if they are sentenced to 30 months or more in jail.
The teenage boy known only as F was jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, after being found guilty of two counts of raping a six-year-old boy.
The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson who was jailed in 1996 for five years.
'Unjustified'
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, the requirement to be monitored had prevented him from taking a family holiday abroad and also stopped him from playing rugby league.
Five supreme court justices upheld a decision by the Court of Appeal that the lack of a review was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the strongest judgement they can give against a piece of legislation.
The ruling raises the prospects of other legal challenges
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 judgement means that an incoming government will need to look again at the law and introduce a review mechanism.
The court did not say that the register itself was illegal, underlining that it was entirely reasonable and lawful to monitor someone for life if they were assessed to be a danger to society.
Policy officials are already looking at the options but will need to wait for the return of ministers after the general election.
'Labelled for life'
Mike Permberton, solicitor for F, said his client had challenged the law because he wanted a fair chance to show the authorities he had reformed.
"This case is important because it considers the rights of a child to mature and develop," said Mr Pemberton.
"At present, any child who commits an offence of this type is labelled for life with no consideration being given to the effect of growing older and learning important lessons from previous mistakes."
"The case does not argue that offenders should automatically be removed from the register but merely provides an opportunity for the risk they pose to be reviewed."
The judges said they had also dismissed the government's appeal because there was no evidence that showed it was impossible to identify which paedophiles had reformed.
Other countries had introduced registers with a review mechanism, they said.
Keeping people on the register after they had reformed was not only an unfair interference in their rights but also a waste of taxpayer's money, they concluded."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8634239.stm
What's your opinion?
The UK Supreme Court ruling paves the way for other offenders to seek to have their details removed.
The two offenders are a teenager convicted of rape and a man in his 50s guilty of indecent assault.
They argued the register breached their human rights because they could not have their inclusion reviewed, even if they had evidence they had reformed.
Offenders are placed on the register for life if they are sentenced to 30 months or more in jail.
The teenage boy known only as F was jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, after being found guilty of two counts of raping a six-year-old boy.
The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson who was jailed in 1996 for five years.
'Unjustified'
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, the requirement to be monitored had prevented him from taking a family holiday abroad and also stopped him from playing rugby league.
Five supreme court justices upheld a decision by the Court of Appeal that the lack of a review was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the strongest judgement they can give against a piece of legislation.
The ruling raises the prospects of other legal challenges
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 judgement means that an incoming government will need to look again at the law and introduce a review mechanism.
The court did not say that the register itself was illegal, underlining that it was entirely reasonable and lawful to monitor someone for life if they were assessed to be a danger to society.
Policy officials are already looking at the options but will need to wait for the return of ministers after the general election.
'Labelled for life'
Mike Permberton, solicitor for F, said his client had challenged the law because he wanted a fair chance to show the authorities he had reformed.
"This case is important because it considers the rights of a child to mature and develop," said Mr Pemberton.
"At present, any child who commits an offence of this type is labelled for life with no consideration being given to the effect of growing older and learning important lessons from previous mistakes."
"The case does not argue that offenders should automatically be removed from the register but merely provides an opportunity for the risk they pose to be reviewed."
The judges said they had also dismissed the government's appeal because there was no evidence that showed it was impossible to identify which paedophiles had reformed.
Other countries had introduced registers with a review mechanism, they said.
Keeping people on the register after they had reformed was not only an unfair interference in their rights but also a waste of taxpayer's money, they concluded."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8634239.stm
What's your opinion?