Paedophile loses right to council accommodation

A convicted paedophile lost his fight for council accommodation yesterday after a judge ruled that he had made himself "intentionally homeless" by committing offences which landed him in jail.

The judgment means that in future councils will have discretion to decide whether a person has made him or herself intentionally homeless in cases where deliberate criminal conduct has led to a jail sentence.

But probation officers and penal reform groups warned that it could lead to a "lynch law" mentality and that such action was likely to put children in more danger by driving paedophiles underground.

In a landmark ruling, the High Court said there was "ample justification" for the London Borough of Hounslow's refusal to provide a roof for "R", a 65-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons.

He accused the housing authority of unlawfully deciding that he was not entitled to help because he had made himself "intentionally homeless" by carrying out sexual assaults on boys, getting jailed and losing his original council accommodation.

But Mr Stephen Richards, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, agreed with the council that "a fair-minded bystander" knowing of R's long history of sexual offences against children and long periods in prison would "unhesitatingly conclude" that loss of accommodation was the likely result of committing further offences.

In early 1990, R, who had been imprisoned on 18 occasions over a 40-year period, left jail and was allocated a property in Chiswick, west London. He was living there in July 1991 when he was given a seven-year sentence for indecent assaults on young boys.

In jail he gave up his Chiswick tenancy after being told that housing benefit could only be paid to prisoners for a maximum of one year, and he realised he was in danger of running up rent arrears.

Released from Whitemoor prison in August 1995, he applied to Hounslow council for accommodation on the grounds that he was homeless and in priority need but was turned down.

R's counsel, Jan Luba, argued that the council had acted outside its powers because it was unreasonable to have expected R to keep up the Chiswick tenancy when he could not afford the rent. If the council was right, Mr Luba said, it would mean that any tenant convicted of an offence and jailed for a period which meant they could not keep up rent payments would face homelessness because of their inability to pay.

Rejecting that submission, the judge said the statute "lays down no special regime for ex-prisoners and cannot be construed in such a way as to create one".

Hounslow Council will now have to consider when to evict R from the temporary accommodation where he has been living pending yesterday's legal challenge. The judge refused R leave to appeal, but he can still apply directly to the Court of Appeal, and ask for an order compelling the authority to continue housing him until any further hearing has taken place.