A, R (on the application of) v B [2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin) (21 July 2010)

A, R (on the application of) v B [2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin) (21 July 2010)

The proposed disclosure of the claimant's private, non-criminal sexual behaviour to his employers was not justified under Article 8 ECHR or common law, as there was insufficient evidence of a pressing social need or a properly assessed risk to justify such a serious interference with privacy. The absence of a clear policy and objective risk assessment rendered the decision arbitrary and disproportionate.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; proposed disclosure quashed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Information, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Common Law Confidentiality, Proportionality, Police Powers
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Police Law Disclosure of Information Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Common Law Confidentiality Proportionality Police Powers

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police disclosure of private, non-criminal sexual behaviour to claimant's employers is lawful and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR and common law confidentiality principles.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a clear policy renders the disclosure unlawful or arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed disclosure of the claimant's private, non-criminal sexual behaviour to his employers was not justified under Article 8 ECHR or common law, as there was insufficient evidence of a pressing social need or a properly assessed risk to justify such a serious interference with privacy. The absence of a clear policy and objective risk assessment rendered the decision arbitrary and disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; proposed disclosure quashed

Orders

  • The proposed disclosure by the police to the claimant's employers is quashed.
  • No disclosure to the university, Mind, or the union is permitted on the present evidence.