G, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of Surrey Police & Ors [2016] EWHC 295 (Admin) (19 February 2016)

G, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of Surrey Police & Ors [2016] EWHC 295 (Admin) (19 February 2016)

The Chief Constable's refusal to delete the reprimands was lawful as the original decision to issue them was not irrational or contrary to guidance. However, the statutory scheme for mandatory disclosure of reprimands/cautions under the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as amended, lacks sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure relevance and proportionality, resulting in an unjustified interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and is incompatible with the law.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 295 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: G; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Surrey Police; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Third Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim against Chief Constable dismissed; declaration of incompatibility granted against Secretaries of State
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Criminal Records, Retention of Police Data, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life), Rehabilitation of Offenders, Proportionality of Interference With Rights, Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Data Protection Law Disclosure of Criminal Records Retention of Police Data Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life) Rehabilitation of Offenders +2 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Claimant

Chief Constable of Surrey Police

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Constable's refusal to delete reprimands from police records was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the statutory scheme for disclosure of reprimands/cautions is compatible with Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether there are sufficient safeguards in the disclosure regime to protect private life

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Constable's refusal to delete the reprimands was lawful as the original decision to issue them was not irrational or contrary to guidance. However, the statutory scheme for mandatory disclosure of reprimands/cautions under the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as amended, lacks sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure relevance and proportionality, resulting in an unjustified interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and is incompatible with the law.

Court Disposition

Claim against Chief Constable dismissed; declaration of incompatibility granted against Secretaries of State

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review against Chief Constable dismissed
  • Declaration of incompatibility made under s.4 Human Rights Act 1998: the statutory disclosure regime is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR due to insufficient safeguards