Schoolboy hears decision on 'sex offender' challenge
A British schoolboy who was placed on the sex offender register after admitting to “smacking girls’ bottoms and pinching bra straps” was today learning whether he has won a High Court challenge over the blacklisting of unconvicted juvenile offenders.
Two judges heard during a recent hearing that the boy, who also confessed to touching two girls on the breast area outside their jumpers, had lost all his friends and become suicidal after being placed on the register.
His father told the judges in London that, although the boy initially regarded his misbehaviour as “horseplay”, he rightly changed his attitude when interviewed by the police.
But in addition to the serious “slap on the wrist” he had expected in the form of a final warning from police, his son was required to record his name on the register for two and a half years, wrecking his plans for a military career.
The father claimed that, before his son confessed to the assaults, no warning was given that he could end up on the register.
“The police have a tough job and have to be seen to protect the public, but they could have been more informative as to what the outcome would be in relation to this young man’s future,” he said.
Today the 15-year-old boy, from Co Durham and referred to in court as “R”, was learning whether or not he has won a judicial review of the decision of Durham Police to refer him for registration.
A second ruling was being made in the parallel case of a boy of the same age - referred to as “U” – who admitted putting his hand up a girl’s skirt.
He was challenging a similar decision by the Metropolitan Police to refer him for registration.
Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Field were being asked to rule that the power to “list” unconvicted juveniles under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act was incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to a fair hearing and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age.
In the case of U, it was also alleged that the boy was induced into confessing by a police constable’s promise that he would be issued with a warning rather than being prosecuted, but he was not warned that his name might end up on the register.
The 1998 Act introduced a new system of reprimands and warnings to be administered when a young person with a clean record admits an offence and a police officer considers that, although he has evidence which would probably result in a conviction, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute.
The court challenge centres on whether offenders should be warned of the significance of a police final warning in relation to registration under the 1997 Sex Offenders Act, and whether the whole procedure is compatible with human rights law.
Boy R’s father told the judges: “I agree he wasn’t completely innocent. He had a lesson to learn in life – that he just couldn’t go on like that.
“We tried to help the police in putting him right and we thought the warning was a good idea.”
But the “relentless” pressure felt by the boy after he was placed on the register ruined his life.
