A, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of C Constabulary

A, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of C Constabulary

The correct test for police security vetting is a two-stage process: (a) whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant is or has been involved in criminal activity, and (b) whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to refuse security clearance. In this case, the volume and seriousness of the intelligence provided reasonable grounds for suspicion, and it was appropriate to refuse clearance. The claimant’s interests did not outweigh the public interest in refusing clearance. The process was not incompatible with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of ‘A’; Defendant: Chief Constable of ‘C’ Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Security Clearance, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Police Vetting, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Administrative Law Police Law Human Rights Security Clearance Judicial Review Proportionality Police Vetting Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of ‘A’

Claimant

Chief Constable of ‘C’ Constabulary

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct test for police security vetting of non-police personnel?
  2. 2 Was the claimant denied procedural fairness in the vetting process?
  3. 3 Did the refusal/revocation of clearance unlawfully interfere with the claimant’s possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct test for police security vetting is a two-stage process: (a) whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant is or has been involved in criminal activity, and (b) whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to refuse security clearance. In this case, the volume and seriousness of the intelligence provided reasonable grounds for suspicion, and it was appropriate to refuse clearance. The claimant’s interests did not outweigh the public interest in refusing clearance. The process was not incompatible with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused