M, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1651 (18 December 2014)

M, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1651 (18 December 2014)

Informal police visits to an offender's home, when consent is given voluntarily and unequivocally, are lawful and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR; section 96B is not incompatible with Article 8 as the scheme provides adequate safeguards and proportionality, and exemption from notification requirements removes its application.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1651
Parties
Claimant/appellant: M; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary; Intervener: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Article 8 ECHR, Police Powers, Consent, Proportionality
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Sexual Offences Act 2003 Article 8 ECHR Police Powers Consent Proportionality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Claimant/appellant

Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary

Defendant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether informal police visits to an offender's home are unlawful under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether section 96B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is incompatible with Article 8 due to lack of separate exemption procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Informal police visits to an offender's home, when consent is given voluntarily and unequivocally, are lawful and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR; section 96B is not incompatible with Article 8 as the scheme provides adequate safeguards and proportionality, and exemption from notification requirements removes its application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed