R (R) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Dyson,Lord Justice McCombe,Lord Justice David Richards |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2016 |
| Date | 10 June 2016 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Dyson Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice McCombe and Lord Justice David Richards
The disclosure of a person's acquittal of rape in an enhanced criminal record certificate in respect of his application for employment as the driver of a private hire car did not undermine the acquittal and was reasonable and proportionate for the protection of the public. It did not contravene the presumption of innocence in article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the person's article 8 right to respect for his privacy and family life. The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, R, against the dismissal by Judge Raynor, QC, sitting as a judge of the Administrative Court([2013] EWHC 2721 (Admin)) of his claim for judicial review of the issue of an enhanced criminal record certificate in proceedings brought against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr Hugh Southey, QC, for the claimant; Ms Jenni Richards, QC, for the chief constable; Mr Jonathan Moffett for the Home Secretary.
LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE said that it was not open to the state to undermine the effect of an acquittal: see R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice(The Times May 12, 2011; [2012] 1 AC 48, paragraph 111)and Serious Organised Crime Agency v Gale(The Times November 17, 2011; [2011] 1 WLR 2760, paragraph 60).
The presumption of innocence would remain after the conclusion of criminal proceedings to ensure that, after an acquittal, the inno-cence of the person charged was respected: see Allen v United Kingdom (Application 25424/09)(The Times July 30, 2013; (2013) 36 BHRC 1, paragraphs 103 and 104). Public officials were not to treat acquitted persons as if they were guilty of the very criminal charge of which they had been acquitted.
The disclosure in the present case did not amount to a violation of the presumption of innocence in article 6.2. The statement in the certificate was extremely limited. Nowhere was it suggested that the claimant was guilty of the offence of which he had been acquitted. The context was all important. The issue was whether to disclose the information as a measure of public protection; there was no procedural link to the criminal proceedings themselves.
Up to the present the European Court of Human Rights had only applied article 6.2 in a "post...
To continue reading
Request your trial