A 14-YEAR-OLD North-East boy who admitted indecently assaulting five female pupils at his school should have been put on the Sex Offenders' Register, the highest court in the land has ruled at the end of three years of legal wrangling.

The case is the first that Durham Police have taken to the House of Lords, and the ruling is regarded as a landmark.

The case began in November 2001 when the boy, then 14, was accused by five girls of indecently assaulting them at a County Durham school.

He was expelled and, in an interview in Durham police station, admitted touching them.

Durham Police formally issued him with a final warning. This enabled the police to put his details on the Sex Offenders' Register and for his behaviour to be monitored by the youth offending team.

When he was 15, the boy became aware that being on the register might jeopardise a future career in the armed forces.

He launched a legal bid to overturn the warning and get his name removed from the register. He claimed that when interviewed about the offences, he was not told that if he accepted the warning his name would go on the register.

He claimed it contravened his human rights, a claim that was upheld by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. It ruled that the warning should be quashed.

But the Chief Constable of Durham and the Home Secretary appealed to the House of Lords, contending that the Queen's Bench decision was wrong in law.

Late last month, in a judgement that has only just been made public, the House of Lords overruled the Queen's Bench decision and dismissed the boy's claim that he should have been given a choice between receiving a final warning or appearing in court.

Chris Southey, legal advisor to Durham Police, said: "It is a landmark case.

"The Lords ruled that it is down to the police to determine, in the public interest, whether to recommend court action or impose a warning.

"This was an unusual experience for Durham Police. Not only has the constabulary proved to be successful, but for the first time the force has gone as far as the House of Lords with a case.

"The Home Secretary became involved because the case involved a direct challenge to Home Office guidance on juveniles."

Ironically, the boy has turned 18 and, because he is no longer a juvenile, he cannot be subject to the warning.