The Chief Constable, represented by Anne Studd, appealed against a judgment of the High Court concerning his decision to disclose to a prospective employer, in an enhanced criminal record certificate, allegations of child sex abuse made against a job applicant. The Chief Constable had disclosed information of allegations, subsequently withdrawn but later re-instated, made by C’s stepdaughter 15 years ago that C had sexually abused her between the ages of 5 and 15. There had never been enough evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction. The High Court had quashed the decision and ordered declaratory and injunctive relief against the Chief Constable precluding further disclosure of the information.

The Chief Constable accepted that he had relied on the applicable guidance at the time, which was found to be inadequate under Article 8 ECHR by the Supreme Court in R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKSC, but submitted that this procedural irregularity had not caused any injustice as his decision would have been the same if the correct guidance had been applied.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and found that the Chief Constable had not provided C with an opportunity to make representations, thereby failing to follow the guidance in R (L). Consequently, the Court upheld the judge’s quashing order. However, the Court overturned the judge’s decision to grant declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court found that the judge had usurped the Chief Constable’s decision-making role and that it was a matter for the Chief Constable to make a new decision, following the correct guidelines, on the facts that were available to him and on any new material that may come to light.

Anne Studd has extensive expertise in judicial review claims arising from police decisions.