A, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary

A, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary

The Defendant's decision to disclose allegations in the ECRC was unlawful because it failed to properly assess the reliability and credibility of the allegations, applied the wrong legal tests, and did not conduct a proper proportionality exercise under Article 8(2) ECHR. The balance between protecting vulnerable adults and the Claimant's right to private life tipped in favour of non-disclosure, as the allegations were found to be unreliable or false.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Defendant's disclosure decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Disclosure of Criminal Records, Proportionality, Police Vetting, Protection of Vulnerable Adults
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Article 8 ECHR Disclosure of Criminal Records Proportionality Police Vetting Protection of Vulnerable Adults

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of allegations in an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate breached Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant applied the correct legal tests in assessing credibility and proportionality
  3. 3 Whether disclosure was proportionate given the unreliability of the allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's decision to disclose allegations in the ECRC was unlawful because it failed to properly assess the reliability and credibility of the allegations, applied the wrong legal tests, and did not conduct a proper proportionality exercise under Article 8(2) ECHR. The balance between protecting vulnerable adults and the Claimant's right to private life tipped in favour of non-disclosure, as the allegations were found to be unreliable or false.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Defendant's disclosure decision quashed.

Orders

  • The decision to disclose allegations against the Claimant in the Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate dated 12th October 2012 is quashed.
  • Disclosure of these allegations by the Defendant in an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate is in breach of Article 8 ECHR and section 6(1) HRA 1998.