A, R (on the application of) v National Probation Service

A, R (on the application of) v National Probation Service

The probation service's decision was set aside because it was based on a presumption of disclosure to accommodation providers, rather than a case-specific assessment of pressing need as required by law and the MAPPA guidance. The decision did not properly balance the claimant's rights and the necessity for disclosure, nor did it treat disclosure to third parties as exceptional. The matter must be reconsidered from the correct legal starting point.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: National Probation Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; decision set aside
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Convictions, Probation Service Powers, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Risk Assessment, Proportionality
Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Disclosure of Convictions Probation Service Powers Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Risk Assessment +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

National Probation Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Probation Service's decision to require disclosure of the claimant's conviction to the manager of proposed accommodation was lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the probation service was bound by the Parole Board's decision not to require disclosure as a condition of release
  3. 3 Whether the decision complied with common law and Article 8 ECHR requirements for disclosure of previous convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The probation service's decision was set aside because it was based on a presumption of disclosure to accommodation providers, rather than a case-specific assessment of pressing need as required by law and the MAPPA guidance. The decision did not properly balance the claimant's rights and the necessity for disclosure, nor did it treat disclosure to third parties as exceptional. The matter must be reconsidered from the correct legal starting point.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; decision set aside

Orders

  • The decision of 25th September 2003 requiring disclosure is set aside.
  • The probation service may reconsider the matter afresh, applying the correct legal test for disclosure.