‘Paedophiles human rights are NOT more important!’

Rules on paedophiles seeing their children relaxed after judges decide their human rights are more important


Restrictions on paedophiles using the internet and seeing their own children have been torn up after judges ruled their human rights are more important.

The Court of Appeal has overturned powers introduced by the last government to protect children from abuse following a landmark legal challenge.

Four men convicted of viewing child abuse images online argued it would breach their ‘right to a family life’ to keep them apart from their children and stop them surfing the web.

In a controversial move, the Court of Appeal said judges should no longer impose total bans on sex offenders accessing the internet.

Paedophiles have also won the right to have unsupervised access to their children as it would breach their human rights to keep them apart, judges said.

They ruled the ‘right to a family life’ must be taken into account before Sexual Offences Prevention Orders are issued. The decision by three appeal judges, led by Lord Justice Hughes, will seriously weaken the ability of the courts to place restrictions on offenders.

The rulings come as ministers review the Human Rights Act which has been responsible for a long list of cases of soft justice.

Violent Barry Stone, 31, was allowed to get close to girlfriend Nicola Sutton, 22, because authorities feared breaching his human rights. He stabbed her to death and hanged himself.

Iraqi asylum seeker Aso Mohammed Ibrahim won the right to stay in the country despite killing a schoolgirl in a hit-and-run.

And a barmy ruling in February meant paedos and rapists can apply to have their names removed from the Sex Offenders Register.

Last night Philip Davies MP said: ‘This is very worrying. What concerns me is the criminal justice system always seems to put the rights of the criminal ahead of the public and victim. It risks creating a terrible victim of crime, which could be completely avoidable. That to me is unforgivable.’

The judges also amended restrictions on:

MOBILE DJ Bryan HALL, now 54, (pictured below) was caught when he took a bin bag full of child abuse mags, photos and CDs to his local tip in Darlington in 2009. Police traced him from a housing benefit letter left in the bag.


He was found to have more than 6,000 child abuse images on his home computer. Got a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years at Teesside Crown Court after admitting 16 charges of making indecent images of children and one count of possessing indecent pictures.

PERVERT Steven SMITH, 36, admitted possessing child abuse images and raping a boy aged under 16. He will benefit from ruling that judges cannot impose blanket bans on child sex offenders.

Pervert Wayne CLARKE, 34, was locked up for child abuse images offences five years ago.

He had been traced to North Wales after breaching his bail and found to have a stash of electronic equipment containing photos and videos of young girls engaged in sexual acts.

He had been in touch with a mother of a four-year-old girl and had sent her child abuse images.

The Court of Appeal ruled the terms of Clarke’s SOPO were ‘wider than necessary’ and a blanket internet ban on him was ‘disproportionate’.

Conditions of the SOPO which prevented any social contact with boys was also ‘unnecessary and unrealistic’ as it would prevent Clarke from having ‘ordinary family contact with his brother and nephews’.