Case no 21387/93
In April 1975, the applicant was sentenced to a term of discretionary life imprisonment for four offences of buggery of boys aged between 12 and 15. (...)
In or about February 1993, the applicant was released on licence. Conditions are attached to the licence, which is of indefinite duration. These include the requirement that he may only live and work where approved by his probation officer and that he may not leave the country without the permission of his probation officer. (...)
7. The applicant then complains that the life licence interfered with his rights under Articles 8, 11 and 12 (Art. 8,11, 12) of the Convention (...):
The Commission recalls that the licence, as described by the applicant, imposes a number of conditions which potentially impinge on his enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 11 (Art. 8, 11) of the Convention, insofar as they refer to where he may live or work. The Commission notes, however, that the applicant has not complained of any specific prejudicial effect caused by the operation of the life licence in his case, save that he was refused permission to leave the country on holiday.
The Commission considers that, assuming the existence of the life licence and the conditions attaching to it constitute interferences under the above provisions, the existence of the life licence may be justified for the purpose of the prevention of disorder or crime. These measures have not been shown to be disproportionate, bearing in mind that the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for serious sexual offences committed against children and that, in his own words, he had become an abuser of children some twenty years prior to his conviction.
Insofar as the applicant was refused permission to leave the country, the Commission notes that this refusal was based on the applicant's failure to inform the probation officer of where he would be staying, and also on the fact that the applicant intended to leave soon after his release from prison. The Commission does not find the resulting restriction on the applicant was unreasonable or arbitrary in the circumstances. (...)
The Commission accordingly finds that there is no indication of a violation of Articles 8, 11 or 12 (Art. 8, 11, 12) of the Convention on the facts as presented in this application.
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.