Police violated paedophile's human rights by telling employer about 20-year-old sex conviction, High Court rules

eAdvocate Post: 4-7-2009 United Kingdom:

Police violated a paedophile's human rights when they told his employers about a 20-year-old conviction for sexually molesting a three-year-old boy, a judge ruled today.

Mr Justice Nicol said the disclosure of the 1987 conviction - which led to the man being sacked from his job - was 'unnecessary'.

Northumbria Police failed to take into account Home Office guidelines before unlawfully disclosing the 'historic' and 'spent' conviction to his bosses, the High Court ruling added.

It amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, which enshrines every citizen's right to respect for privacy and family life, said Mr Justice Nicol.

But the paedophile, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had his claims for compensation dashed after the judge said that police had been entitled to disclose to the man's employers his 2007 arrest on suspicion of abusing his daughter.

(eAdvocate Post)

The man - referred to in the High Court as 'W' - was aged 16 when he was handed a 12-month supervision order by a youth court for sexually assaulting a three-year-old boy he had been babysitting.

But the judge ruled the disclosure of that fact had not cost him his job.

Following the disclosures to the man's employers in late 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped proceedings against W, but not before he was sacked from his blue collar job.

Lawyers for Northumbria Police argued that both disclosures were a 'proportionate and necessary' step to protect the public.

They said they were made amid fears that W could enter people's homes and have contact with children in the course of his job.

Nicholas Wilcox, for the police, said a family court judge had later found that W 'was a dangerous paedophile and that he had sexually abused no less than three children of different ages and sexes and presented a significant ongoing risk to children'.

Although that decision post-dated the disclosures to W's employers, the barrister argued it showed police had been right to view him as posing a 'high risk of sexual offending'.

Mr Justice Nicol ruled: 'W has an unanswerable complaint that the decision to disclose his 1987 conviction was unlawful.'

Although W's employers said at the time that they would not have taken him onto the pay roll had they known about his murky past, the judge said the 1987 conviction was 'spent' under the terms of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and that had not been taken into account.

The 2007 arrest, however, showed the police had a 'current interest' in W and had been lawfully disclosed so that W's employers could 'take care' over his contact with children.

Julian Knowles, for W, told the judge the police disclosures had caused him 'humiliation, anxiety and loss of reputation'.

He added that, as well as loss of earnings and self-esteem, the stigma of the 1987 sex conviction had led to 'intimidation' and left him suffering sleeplessness and panic attacks.

Mr Justice Nicol said the court's declaration that W's human rights had been violated was a 'sufficient remedy' and a damages award was not necessary to give him 'just satisfaction'. ..News Source.. by Daily Mail Reporter