a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court agreed (Lords Phillips, Hope, Rodger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke). Thus, three English courts staffed by eminent judges all found that the absence of a review mechanism was a breach of human rights. On all other points the government's position was upheld. The court's judgment is not a judicial attack against Parliament or against the idea of keeping tabs on sex offenders.
Why then does Theresa May go to the Commons and say that the government is 'disappointed and appalled' the decision of the court? Theresa May's speech can be seen on the BBC "Home Secretary Theresa May: Government is "appalled" by sex offender ruling." Thus, in the space of two consecutive weeks, British politicians have attacked the European Court of Human Rights and our own judiciary.
Lord Rodger commented that F's case showed that a child offender is also subject to what amounts to a notification requirement which will affect the whole of his adult life. It was open to Parliament to take the precaution of requiring such offenders to notify indefinitely but that made it "all the more important for the legislation to include some provision for reviewing the position and ending the requirement if the time comes when it is appropriate."
The UK Human Rights blog has also taken a look at this case. The Court of Appeal's judgment in this case is also worth reading. There is a suggestion that Parliament might choose to set a very high bar for any reviews to succeed. It would appear that the government has latched on to this suggestion.
Note: The age of criminal responsibility in English law is 10. In some countries, F would not have been convicted of an offence but would have been dealt with differently. See Telegraph 25th May 2010.
Addendum: Solicitor's Journal - "Euro Vision: Wrong Contest" and Liberty "Moral Outrage or Political Posturing"