News emerged yesterday that the UK government is to allow sex offenders to ask for a review of their status on the sex offenders register. This follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in April of last year. Many a tabloid will have screaming headlines on the issue today – but for the facts of the two cases dealt with by the court why not read the ruling for yourself.

Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister displayed a lot of anger about the ruling, claiming that unelected judges were over-ruling parliament and it was spun that the rights of offenders were being put above the rights of victims. But if they truly want to help the victims of sex offenders – who more often than not struggle with lifelong mental health problems, sometimes descending into a dark pit of despair, alcohol and drug abuse, and even some end up becoming abusers themselves – they should invest heavily in counselling programmes, radically overhaul the mental health system and provide long term support. In fact, punishing the offender a bit more harshly makes very little difference at all to the victim – but giving them proper support through their trauma would.

But let me turn to the substance of yesterday’s announcement. Under the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 everyone imprisoned for more than 30 months for a sexual offence is placed on the register and stays on it for life without the possibility of appeal at any stage. As the judge said, ‘This duty persists until the day they die’. Regularly reporting their name, address and other details to the police – especially when they move – may be an onerous task but it does help the police in keeping tracks on people who could be a danger to the public. Many other countries have a similar method – though it has to be said that most of those do have a right of review.

And it is this right of review – or the lack of it in the UK – that was the subject of a number of court cases and which ended up in the Supreme Court last year. The cases of two males were dealt with – one of whom offended when he was 11 years old. They claimed that the duty to register interfered with their right to a private life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – in particular since there was no opportunity to ask for a review of their cases. They were not arguing that should never have been on the register or that such a register should not exist – only that there was no review. The judge also was very clear that the register is a helpful tool for the police as they seek to protect the public. No where in the judgment is it suggested that the register should not exist. But he did agree with the view that the lack of right to review breached their human rights under Article 8.

A right of review would be based on the possibility that people can change and become better people. Contrary to popular opinion most sex offenders do not go on to re-offend following a term in prison. Before doing some basic research last night I too was under the impression that sex offenders – especially those who abuse children – are locked-in to a lifelong cycle of re-offending. But according to many academic studies, this is not the case. (You can find some of these reports here, here, here and here. There are more available.) And this, surely, is key piece of evidence.

The right of review should not be automatic; it should not just kick in after a set number of years. The bar for being removed from the register should be set very high indeed and a whole number of professional people should be involved in the assessment of the ex-offender. If there is any doubt then clearly the person should not be removed. It may be that only a tiny minority are able to satisfy the criteria; it may even be that no one manages to do it. But that there should be a right of review, for me, is clear.

I base my view on the central Christian teaching of redemption. Maybe I should even refer to it as ‘the central teaching’ – because this is what the gospel is all about – God’s transforming love available to all no matter what the condition of their life has been. And redemption isn’t just a theory or a concept; it isn’t something that’s interesting to read or preach about. It is practical and life changing; it is real. I’ve been changed by it and so have most – if not all – of those who read this blog. It’s what we live for.

And redemption shouts out one heck of a message to the world – to every single person, to all of creation – yes, even the sex offender, there is hope of restoration. To those who aren’t believers, of course, this message is just as much a stumbling block today as it was in the first century. But I am a believer.

Of course, this makes me a total hypocrite. Here I am, calling for a key Christian truth to be made foundational in our criminal law and yet for months I have hinted that the church has to accept the new landscape that is the West – where Christian values no longer form a part of our society or its laws. Some of you have argued against me. But we can be united on this one. Can’t we?