A, R (on the application of) v B

A, R (on the application of) v B

The proposed disclosure of the claimant's private sexual behaviour to his employers was not justified under Article 8 ECHR or common law. The police's risk assessment was insufficiently objective and lacked empirical support. There was no pressing social need or proportionality to justify such a serious interference with the claimant's right to privacy, especially given the absence of unlawful conduct and the lack of a clear policy or guidance. The claim succeeded and the proposed disclosure was quashed.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Information, Right to Privacy, Police Powers, Proportionality, Common Law Confidentiality
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Disclosure of Information Right to Privacy Police Powers Proportionality Common Law Confidentiality

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 23 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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed disclosure of private sexual behaviour by police to claimant's employers is lawful and proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and common law principles.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a clear policy renders the disclosure arbitrary or unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the risk assessment by the police was sufficient to justify disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed disclosure of the claimant's private sexual behaviour to his employers was not justified under Article 8 ECHR or common law. The police's risk assessment was insufficiently objective and lacked empirical support. There was no pressing social need or proportionality to justify such a serious interference with the claimant's right to privacy, especially given the absence of unlawful conduct and the lack of a clear policy or guidance. The claim succeeded and the proposed disclosure was quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Proposed disclosure by the police to the claimant's employers is quashed.