R, R (On the Application Of) v The National Police Chief's Council & Anor

R, R (On the Application Of) v The National Police Chief's Council & Anor

The use and mandatory disclosure of the claimant's low-level, historical reprimand for theft, both under the police vetting policy and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, was unlawful as it violated Article 8 ECHR. The legislative and policy framework was insufficiently calibrated, failed to provide adequate safeguards or independent review, and was not necessary in a democratic society for such minor, historical offences.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of "R"); First Defendant: The National Police Chief's Council; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: College of Policing; Interested Party: National DNA Database Strategy Board; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; declaration of incompatibility issued regarding the 1975 Order as it applies to low-level, historical cautions for police constables and cadets.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Criminal Records, Article 8 ECHR, Police Vetting, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Legality of Bright Line Rules
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Employment Law Disclosure of Criminal Records Article 8 ECHR Police Vetting Rehabilitation of Offenders Legality of Bright Line Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of "R")

Claimant

The National Police Chief's Council

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

College of Policing

Interested Party

National DNA Database Strategy Board

Interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disclosure and use of a childhood reprimand for theft in police employment vetting violates Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the relevant legislative and policy framework is 'in accordance with the law' and 'necessary in a democratic society' under Article 8(2) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The use and mandatory disclosure of the claimant's low-level, historical reprimand for theft, both under the police vetting policy and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, was unlawful as it violated Article 8 ECHR. The legislative and policy framework was insufficiently calibrated, failed to provide adequate safeguards or independent review, and was not necessary in a democratic society for such minor, historical offences.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; declaration of incompatibility issued regarding the 1975 Order as it applies to low-level, historical cautions for police constables and cadets.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 cannot be read or given effect in a way compatible with Article 8 ECHR to the extent that it excludes protections for constables or cadets in respect of low-level, historical cautions.
  • No formal declarations made regarding the general police policy or specific decisions by South Wales Police.