David Cameron declared war on unelected judges yesterday after they put the human rights of paedophiles and rapists before public safety.

The Prime Minister said he was 'appalled' that Britain's 50,000 sex offenders can appeal against being kept on a police register for life.

In a highly-charged intervention, Mr Cameron called for an overhaul of the 'completely offensive' rulings from the European Court of Human Rights which have influenced our own judges.

© Press Association
Anger: David Cameron during Prime Minister's Question Time. He described a ruling over sex offenders' rights to apply to have their name removed from the register as 'completely offensive'
'It's about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts,' Mr Cameron said.

And he announced plans to ensure MPs make laws rather than the judiciary.

He told MPs that a commission to draw up a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act will be set up 'imminently'.

Home Secretary Theresa May called for a return 'to sanity' and pledged to do the 'minimum possible' to comply with the judges' demands to protect the rights of paedophiles.

She said: 'These are rights, of course, that these offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading manner. It places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of reoffending.'

Mr Cameron's outburst puts him on a collision course with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

But if he fails to deliver he will further enrage Tory MPs, who recently voted to reject a European Court ruling that prisoners should have the right to vote.

He spoke out after the Supreme Court, which is England's highest court, ruled that rapists and paedophiles must have the right to be removed from the national sex offenders register if they can prove they are no longer a threat to children. It was relying on previous European Court rulings which enshrine the human right to privacy.

© Press Association
Defiant: Home Secretary Theresa May called for a return 'to sanity'
It will mean offenders - such as former pop impresario Jonathan King, jailed for seven years for sexually abusing teenage boys - get the right to appeal against being on the register 15 years after their release from prison.

The judges said keeping serious offenders on the register for life was 'disproportionate' and a breach of their right to a private and family life.

The Prime Minister said it was 'completely offensive' to 'have, once again, a ruling by a court that seems to fly completely in the face of common sense.' He added: 'I am appalled by the Supreme Court ruling.'

In response to the ruling, the Home Secretary announced new restrictions on convicted molesters who are released from prison to close a series of staggering loopholes left by Labour.

Currently sex offenders on the lowest danger level simply have to attend a police station once a year, tell the police their name, date of birth and National Insurance Number and alert them to changes in their address.

In future paedophiles and rapists will have to alert the authorities whenever they are living in a house with anyone under 18.

They must report to the police when they travel abroad, even for one day. Currently they can leave the country for up to three days with no restrictions.

Homeless sex offenders who claim they have 'no fixed abode' will have to tell the police every week where they are staying.

Mrs May also aims to close the loophole that means sex offenders can avoid staying on the register if they change their name by deed poll.

Such a Bill, if implemented, would contain a series of non-negotiable declarations about the rights of the individual accompanied by their responsibilities.

© Press Association
Under fire: Lord Phillips said that it breaches the human rights of rapists and paedophiles to be on the register for life with no chance of review
The idea would be to deter vexatious claims from serial litigants or criminals attempting to exploit human rights laws for their own personal profit.

But it remains unclear when the commission Mr Cameron intends to set up will report and who will head it.

Senior government officials say the panel, chaired by an independent figure, will be asked to redraw the balance of power between Parliament and the courts, both in Europe and the UK.

Senior Tories conceded that dramatic change may have to wait for four years because of Liberal Democrat support for the Human Rights Act.

But they pledged to put 'more Conservative' plans to crush the courts at the heart of the next Tory election manifesto in 2015.

Victims groups reacted with fury to the Supreme Court ruling. Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of the NSPCC, said: 'Adults who sexually abuse children should stay on the offenders' register for life as we can never be sure their behaviour will change.'

Lyn Costello, from Mothers Against Murder And Aggression, said: 'I wonder what's next? Are we going to say it's against their human rights to lock them up at all? We're playing with people's lives.'

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused the Government of failing to do enough to resist the court's demands. 'We believe sex offenders should stay on the register for the protection of the public,' she said.

'Although the Home Secretary has said she wants the new regime to be as tough as possible, we are not yet convinced she has done that. Nor are we confident that the Home Office has considered all the alternatives.'

Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile attacked Mr Cameron's assault on judges. He said: 'The language used by the Government in the statement today was extraordinary because it felt like an attack on the judiciary, and in this particular case what the judiciary had done was carry out it's normal task of interpreting the law as it is.'

A senior Liberal Democrat source said: 'Any commission is not going to be about detracting from rights, it's going to be about building on them. That's what the coalition agreement says.'

© Unknown
Will British Bill of Rights protect our freedoms?

Analysis by Jack Doyle

There remains huge confusion about what a British Bill of Rights would achieve and how it would be implemented.

Supporters of the move say the Bill would help restore 'common sense' to judicial rulings.

The idea is to enshrine in legislation the principle of individual responsibility alongside rights - allowing courts to kick out vexatious claims by dubious individuals, such as serial litigants or criminals.

© Unknown
Defence: Tory MP Dominic Raab called for a British Bill of Rights to resuscitate freedoms undermined by Labour and 'restore some common sense'
It would also seek to protect important liberties - such as the right to trial by jury - to prevent them being removed by future governments.

Most importantly, such a Bill would send a strong message to Strasbourg that decisions made in Parliament by elected MPs must be respected.

A commission will now be established to examine how this Bill could be framed. But its terms of reference are still to be decided as is its make-up.

And despite Mr Cameron's clear intentions, the outcome is far from clear, given likely opposition from both the Liberal Democrats - and Tories such as Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke.

In the past, Strasbourg has prevented Al Qaeda terrorists being sent back to their own countries because they could face torture.

And European judges have also stopped dangerous criminals being deported because of their right to a family life. Conservative backbenchers, including former shadow home secretary David Davis, want Labour's discredited Human Rights Act to be scrapped and replaced with a British Bill.

Tory MP Dominic Raab, who led Parliamentary opposition to votes for prisoners, said: 'We need a British Bill of Rights to resuscitate our freedoms undermined by Labour, but also to restore some common sense.

'The final say on how parents discipline their children, who we can deport and whether prisoners get the vote should lie with elected British law-makers not unaccountable judges in Strasbourg,'

Last week Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, said the Strasbourg court had 'taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states'.

Although the European Convention on Human Rights would still remain, British courts would be given more room to interpret it as they saw fit, instead of slavishly following edicts issued by judges from nations such as Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra.

Tory eurosceptics are keen to withdraw from the ECHR altogether.

But their partners in Government, the Liberal Democrats, would baulk at this and such a move would torpedo the Coalition.