Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, July 26, 2005, [2005] EWHC 1597 (QB)

Reporting Judge: [2005] EWHC 1597 (QB)

President: Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Linked as:

Extract

Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, July 26, 2005, [2005] EWHC 1597 (QB)

Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 1597 (QB)

Case No: HQ04X2747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 26/07/2005

Before :

MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Matthew Ryder (instructed by Davis Hanson) for the Claimant

Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 21 June 2005

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentMr Justice Stanley Burnton:

Introduction

1. This is my judgment on the preliminary issue ordered to be tried in this case, namely whether paragraph 14(a) of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. In summary, the Claimant complains that the effect of that statutory provision is to subject him to the notification requirements of Part 2 of that Act applicable to those convicted of sexual offences when he has not been convicted of being a sexual offender, because when he was tried it was not proved that he intended to commit an offence that was sexual in nature.

Anonymity

3. On 9 August 2004, the Master made an order giving the Claimant permission, until further order, to remain anonymous in these (then proposed) proceedings. The Claimant was concerned that the proceedings would result in further adverse personal publicity for him. I describe the publicity as ``further'' because his conviction, to which I refer below, was, of course, public. Moreover, he appealed his conviction to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords, and it was the subject of the decision of the latter repo...

See the full content of this document