Sex offender who married vulnerable woman while he was in prison told he can live with her Court of Appeal: Law has no power to stop woman cohabiting with man She began seeing him before he was convicted and jailed for sex offences Judge ruled last year she needed 'phased transition' before cohabitation But she can now move in with him because of her legal capacity to marry A vulnerable woman who married a predatory sex offender whilst he was behind bars will be allowed to live with him after top judges today upheld her right to choose in a landmark ruling. Although it might be "extremely unwise" for the woman to cohabit with the man, whom she wed while he was serving a long sentence, the law simply had no power to stop her, a court heard today. The woman with learning difficulties, referred to as "PC," began seeing the man - "NC" - before he was convicted and jailed for a series of sex offences, the Court of Appeal in central London was told. Ruling: The Court of Appeal (pictured) in central London heard today that the woman with learning difficulties began seeing the man before he was convicted and jailed for a series of sex offences But despite his sordid crimes, PC stood by him and they became married whilst he was in jail. With his release imminent, social workers went to court in a bid to protect PC. Top family judge Mr Justice Hedley ruled last year that it was "in her best interests" to undergo a "phased transition" before being allowed to resume cohabitation with him. The judge also authorised social workers to split the couple if they spotted an "imminent and serious threat to PC's welfare." But PC can now do what she likes after the court ruled that because she was agreed to have the legal capacity to marry, she also had the right to decide whether to live with her own husband. Lord Justice McFarlane said: "I well understand that all the responsible professionals take the view that it would be extremely unwise for PC to cohabit with her husband. But adult autonomy is such that people are free to make unwise decisions, provided that they have the capacity to decide. The judge, sitting with Lords Justice Richards and Lewison, added: "If PC has capacity to marry she must be taken to have capacity to decide to perform the terms of the marriage contract. Ruling: Lord Justice McFarlane said at the court that people are 'free to make unwise decisions, provided that they have the capacity to decide' Any finding to the contrary required clear and cogent evidence. Such evidence was lacking in the present case and the finding that PC was unable to make this decision was simply not open to the judge. Paul Bowen QC, representing PC, earlier pointed out that she has only "mild" learning difficulties and has lived "more or less independently since leaving school." Middle-aged PC has managed to hold down several jobs over the years. But, as the husband's release date approached, the council initially applied to the Court of Protection for an order that PC lacked legal capacity to make decisions for herself or "engage in sexual relations" with anyone. However, after protracted investigations by social workers, the council accepted she was able to choose for herself whether to have sex with her husband and suggested that the best way forward was for the relationship to be tightly monitored. There was no "outright ban" on sexual contact, said Mr Bowen, who added that PC was allowed to visit her husband in his local authority accommodation and was given "unsupervised overnight contact" with him. Lord Justice McFarlane said today: "Any court would be bound to entertain very significant concerns at the prospect of any woman going to set up home with NC. Looked at objectively, through the eyes of experienced professionals, NC clearly presents a significant risk to any woman who enters into a close relationship with him. The judge added that it was a common "modus operandi" for sex offenders to subject their victims to lengthy periods of "grooming" before embarking upon abuse. There is therefore an understandable and justified professional concern to protect a potentially vulnerable woman who has formed a close relationship with NC. However, emphasising that the law must not trespass on the "autonony of the individual," the judge added: "There may be many women who are seen to be in relationships with men regarded by professionals as predatory sexual offenders. There is a space between an unwise decision and one which an individual does not have the mental capacity to take Lord Justice McFarlane "The Court of Protection does not have jurisdiction to act to "protect" these women if they do not lack the mental capacity to decide whether or not to be, or continue to be, in such a relationship. "The individual's decision may be said to be "against the better judgment" of the women concerned, but the point is that, unless they lack mental capacity to make that judgement, it is against their better judgment. It is a judgment that they are entitled to make. The law respects their autonomy so to decide and the Court of Protection has no jurisdiction to intervene. The judge concluded: "There is a space between an unwise decision and one which an individual does not have the mental capacity to take. It is important to respect that space, and to ensure that it is preserved, for it is within that space that an individual's autonomy operates.