21 Oct, 2018, 12:08 AM

News:

Welcome to our Free Forum For UK Criminal Solicitors Only.  Discussion forums covering all aspects of criminal practitioners work from the police station, youth, magistrates' & crown courts.


Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate - Repremands

Started by Ron Barker, 25 Oct, 2017, 02:22 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

Ron Barker

R, R (On the Application Of) v The National Police Chief's Council & Anor [2017 EWHC 2586 (Admin) (17 October 2017) The claim concerns the legality of the disclosure and use of information held on and retrievable from police records. The case concerns a reprimand given to the Claimant, when she was aged 13, which subsequently precluded her from being employed by the South Wales Police ("the Police") in a staff position and, she says, has had the additional effect of blocking her from being offered employment in any service related to policing in the future including as a police constable.

[6]. The issues arising are affected by a series of recent judgments including of the Supreme Court. The first is [ R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police] [2015] UKSC 35 ("T") in which the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that should be applied to determine whether schemes governing the retention, disclosure and use of records of this nature complied with Article 8. T was then applied in R (P, G, W and Krol) v. Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 321 ("P & Ors"), and, Re Gallagher [2016] NICA 42 ("Re Gallagher"). These judgments purport to apply the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in its judgment in MM v United Kingdom (Application No 24029/07) (29th April 2013).

Held: [18]. We have concluded that: (1) the decision of the Police to refuse employment was unlawful as in breach of Article 8; (2) the Policy relied upon by the Police to determine the Claimant's application for employment is in violation of Article 8; and (3) the legislative regime governing disclosure is in violation of Article 8 in so far as it concerns reprimands of the nature in issue in this case. Our more detailed conclusions and our conclusion on appropriate declaratory relief, are set out in paragraphs [94] and [95] below. [76]. We turn now to our conclusions on the law relating to use of the reprimand. In our judgment the use of the disclosed information as reflected by the Decision letter, and as mandated by the Policy, was and is unlawful for a multiplicity of reasons.

Go Up