Prothero, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev. 1)

Notification requirements requiring persons on the Sex Offenders Register to provide bank-account and debit- or credit-card details may interfere with Article 8 rights, but the interference is lawful if the information is securely held and the requirement materially advances the protection of potential victims.

The court must assess proportionality for itself, while allowing the Secretary of State an appropriate margin of appreciation. Evidence from comparable arrangements, together with the practical difficulties of tracing an offender through statutory requests to multiple financial institutions, may establish that the requirement is necessary and proportionate.

The claimant, who was subject indefinitely to the notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, challenged Regulation 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012.

He argued that requiring details of bank accounts and debit and credit cards unjustifiably interfered with his Article 8 rights. The Secretary of State relied on the increased ability of the police to trace offenders who failed to comply with notification requirements and to investigate relevant offences. The central issue was whether the additional notification requirement was a proportionate means of achieving those aims.

1. The claim for a declaration of incompatibility was dismissed. Regulation 12 was not incompatible with the Convention.

2. The requirement to provide bank-account and debit- or credit-card details constituted a material interference with Article 8. Its principal impact arose from identifying the claimant as a person on the Sex Offenders Register. The additional financial risk was more limited because the information was securely recorded on ViSOR, did not itself permit access to transactions, and ordinarily could be used to obtain further information only through appropriate legal procedures.

3. The legitimate aims were to trace an offender quickly, guard against the use of another identity, and facilitate investigation of offences involving indecent images. Evidence from Scotland demonstrated that comparable notification requirements had enabled offenders to be traced quickly.

4. Applying the proportionality approach in R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 and Wilson v First County Trust Limited (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, the court assessed the evidence and circumstances for itself, while allowing the Secretary of State a due margin of appreciation. Requiring financial details avoided time-consuming and expensive applications to numerous banks and institutions and enabled the police to seek appropriate orders promptly.

5. The requirement was therefore an appropriate, necessary and proportionate means of protecting potential victims. The court also revoked the claimant’s anonymity: a claimant seeking anonymity on Article 8 grounds must provide evidence permitting the court to balance private interests against open justice and Article 10.