Who has the right to protection?

MR Justice Bodey, sitting at London's High Court Family Division, was in an unenviable position. Before him was the case of a man who had an horrific 30-year history of sexually abusing children as young as two years old. A man who he himself admitted was "dangerous, manipulative and a considerable risk to children."

And yet Mr Justice Bodey, one of Britain's most respected family judges, banned police chiefs and social workers from alerting potential landlords that the paedophile could soon move next door to families with children.

Despite his fears, he told the court he had to take into account the interests of the paedophile and his family and the likely impact which the disclosure might have on them in terms of vigilantism, gossip and employment difficulties. The police now have limited permission to warn his current landlords of his activities so that they can ensure children are not moved in to live near him.

Even the housing association which will be told of the peadophile's history could land itself in court if the information given about Mr C, as he has been named, is leaked to anyone.

But once again, parents will say that the criminal has won and the laws which are there to protect the public are also protecting the people who pose a serious threat.

Says James Sweeney, a lecturer in human rights at Newcastle University: "It is very similar to what has been said about other criminals such as Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the killers of James Bulger. Should these people be able to go on and live a normal life? I think tensions certainly run high when we have these sorts of issues and it's probably right that they are a matter for public debate.

'With the issue of human rights, it's always a balance between the right of the individual and of the collective wider good. Certainly, with the advent of the Human Rights Act, people have become a bit more rights conscious. What is the danger is that human rights seems to be getting a bad name because it seems to be the criminals who are more publicly relying on it.

"But what we have to say is, what sort of society do we want to live in? We can't pick and choose who gets human rights. Where there are these well publicised, very frustrating cases, what we must remember is that, in essence, it is a step forward. We can now confidently raise our human rights issues in the courts and it's another way of holding the Government to account - which can't be a bad thing."

As with any crime involving children, emotions will run high. Who could fail to be moved by the tortured expressions of Sara and Michael Payne after their daughter's killer, Roy Whiting, was jailed for life.

Sarah suffered a brutal sexual assault before being suffocated and dumped in a shallow grave. What added to the misery of the family and touched a raw nerve with the nation was that Whiting had offended before. The Paynes have since fought for a change in the law on paedophiles with the high profile help of the News of the World and their 'naming and shaming' campaign.

The family want to see Sarah's Law created which would allow parents to examine the register of paedophiles. About 20 versions of the law are in place to some degree in America, where it is known as Megan's Law.

Seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a paedophile neighbour, Jesse Timmendequas, in the New Jersey suburb of Hamilton Township in 1994.

The US law gives communities the right to know when a sex offender moves into the neighbourhood and makes a register of sex offenders, which is open for public inspection. Access to information varies from state to state. In New Mexico, the names of peadophiles are downloaded from an Internet website. In other states, only the names of serious sex offenders are included.

But, according to Alisdair Gillespie, senior lecturer in criminal justice at Teesside University, there is no evidence that the American version is having any positive effect.

'One of the dangers of the law is vigilantism and another aspect is that the vast majority of child abuse is within the family, not stranger abuse. The police don't want Sarah's Law because they think it would be an administrative nightmare and because they believe the system is already working. The police already have the right to tell the public if they think someone is dangerous. What they can't do, if they think he may possibly be dangerous at some point, is to tell whoever they want.

"I don't agree with Sarah's Law because I don't think the public have demonstrated yet that they can handle the information. But I do think the current system is wrong because there is too much secrecy. We should be able to say what procedures and steps are taken to protect the public and how the present system works."

Since the call for Sarah's Law, Home Secretary David Blunkett has promised to "put the sense back into sentencing" sex offenders. After a meeting with the Paynes he pledged to introduce indeterminate sentencing for serious offenders, meaning they would not be released from prison until it was proved they were safe. He has also discussed plans to allow members of the public to join police and probation officers on local protection panels, giving locals a "voice and a representative". The police have also already been given powers to stop known sex offenders moving around.

But like Mr Justice Bodey, David Blunkett has to balance the need for justice with the need to prevent the kind of witch-hunts witnessed in Hartlepool and Portsmouth after the News of the World's 'name and shame' campaign.

In Portsmouth, lynch mobs went on the attack, stoning houses and daubing walls with abuse, as well as overturning and burning cars. During the riots, numerous men were wrongly branded paedophiles. The most ridiculous example of mob justice was the female paediatrician, a doctor specialising in the treatment of children, who was targeted because the protestors believed her job title meant she was a paedophile.

Says Mr Gillespie: "That is always the problem when telling people about paedophiles, that there is a serious risk of vigilantism. Then you have a risk of driving them underground. It is very easy to disappear, to move 200 miles away and create a new identity.

"More often than not, the paedophile will be keen to comply with the police because they know if they don't they face the risk of disclosure and the community will hound them out of existence. Most of them actually just want to settle down and have a quiet life. They can't do that if the public are told."