TD, R (on the application of) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Anor [2013] EWHC 2231 (Admin) (25 July 2013)

TD, R (on the application of) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Anor [2013] EWHC 2231 (Admin) (25 July 2013)

Retention of the claimant's records for nine years is justified and proportionate at this stage, given restricted access and potential future use, but the absence of a review mechanism in the Metropolitan Police's policy is a significant flaw that must be addressed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2231 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: TD; 1st Defendant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Retention of Police Records, Article 8 ECHR, Data Protection, Police Policy Review, Disclosure of Criminal Allegations

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

Parties

TD

Claimant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether retention of police records relating to an unproven sexual assault allegation is a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the Metropolitan Police's policy on retention without review is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Retention of the claimant's records for nine years is justified and proportionate at this stage, given restricted access and potential future use, but the absence of a review mechanism in the Metropolitan Police's policy is a significant flaw that must be addressed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • No order to quash the decision to retain records
  • No declaration as to review made