R (S) v The Chief Constable of the West Mercia Constabulary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS,Mr Justice Wyn Williams |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 18 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/8596/06 |
[2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Honourable Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Case No: CO/8596/06
Peter Prescott QC (instructed by Messrs Beech Jones De Lloyd Solicitors) for the Claimant
Georgina Kent (instructed by Head of Legal Services of the Defendant) for the Defendant
The Interested Party did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 3 November 2008
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Justice Wyn Williams:
The Claimant is now aged 49. As a younger man he played rugby union as an amateur but to a high competitive level. For some years preceding 2006 he involved himself in various training and support roles with his local rugby club.
In 2006 he decided to re-apply for a position as a coach at his club. As coach, the Claimant would be an employee of the club and, as I understand it, the Rules of the Rugby Football Union required that he apply to the Interested Party for an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “ECRC”). In summary, and ECRC provides not only information about convictions or cautions recorded against a person but also, in some circumstances, gives information about allegations which have been made against him.
The Claimant made an application for ECRC on or about 5 March 2006. He did not anticipate receiving anything other than a certificate which stated that he had no criminal convictions or cautions whatsoever.
On 17 July 2006 the Interested Party issued an ECRC to the Claimant. The document was headed “Strictly Private and Confidential”. However it was sent both to the Claimant and to an administrative assistant at the offices of the Rugby Football Union at Twickenham.
Under the heading “Police Records and Convictions Cautions Reprimands andFinal Warnings the words “None Recorded” appeared. However in a section entitled “Other relevant information disclosed at the Chief Police Officer(s) discretion West Mercia” the following appeared:—
“On 14th March 2004, Police arrested and charged the Applicant with 11 counts of outraging public decency. The offences were committed between November 2003 and March 2004.
The details surrounding the incident are that the Applicant drives from his home address to the Lickey Hills and jogs around the area minus his shorts, wishing passing females 'good morning' as he runs past them. Various reports from different females were received at different times.
The Applicant was interviewed in relation to the allegations and denied exposing himself, but did admit jogging in the area every Sunday morning.
The allegations were amended to section 5 Public Order Offences and the case proceeded to Redditch Magistrates Court on 7 th February 2005. The Applicant pleaded Not Guilty to 5 counts of using threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
The Applicant was found Not Guilty on all 5 counts.”
When he received the ECRC the Claimant telephoned the Interested Party to assert that the ECRC was inaccurate. His complaint was that the information contained in the section to which I have referred should not have appeared at all in the certificate. He completed documentation provided to him by the Interested Party which confirmed the basis of his complaint. However despite his complaint in due course the Claimant was informed by the Interested Party that the Defendant had confirmed that their records were accurate and that the information was properly included upon the ECRC.
On 18 October 2006 the Claimant issued these proceedings. In the proceedings, as originally formulated, the Claimant sought declaratory relief to the effect that the information contained in the ECRC had been provided unlawfully by the Defendant to the Interested Party.
On 13 November 2006 Master Venne made an order at the request of both Claimant and Defendant whereby the proceedings were stayed until 19 February 2007 “to allow the parties the opportunity to seek informal resolution to this issue”. In due course a further order was made for a continuation of the stay.
On 4 December 2007 the solicitor for the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's solicitors to inform them that “the proper way forward in this matter is for S's application for an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate to be reconsideredin the light of the all the information now available.” The solicitor suggested that she intended to ask the Deputy Chief Constable of the West Mercia Force, DCC Arundale, (hereinafter referred to as “the DCC”) to consider the matter afresh and determine whether or not any reference to the Claimant's arrest, trial and subsequent acquittal should be made in the ECRC.
The letter identified the information which the DCC would have before him and the letter concluded with these two short paragraphs:—
“If you wish to make representations in writing for the DCC to consider when making his decision, I will also place these before him. Perhaps you would also let me know if there is any material which you think he should be in possession of when making his decision.
I look forward to hearing from you and if you wish to make representations, could I please hear from you by 4 January.”
It is common ground that the Claimant made no representation in response to this letter. However, he did take the following steps. Firstly he invited the court to grant permission for amendments to be made to the grounds of claim; secondly he invited the court to consider the issue of permission.
On 25 April 2008 His Honour Judge Mackie QC gave permission to amend and also granted permission to apply for judicial review.
The Defendant's response was two-fold. First, he maintained the stance that he had behaved lawfully, by his delegated subordinates, when providing the information contained in the ECRC to the Interested Party for inclusion within the ECRC. Second, he informed the Claimant that the DCC had made a decision on 6 March 2008 to the effect that the information which the police held about the Claimant being charged with and acquitted of offences ought to be disclosed in an ECRC. This information was communicated to the Claimant by a letter to his solicitors; the letter specified the information which the DCC had taken into account in reaching his decision; it also enclosed a statement dated 16 May 2008 made by the DCC which outlined the reasons why he had reached his decision.
The other enclosure sent with the letter was a document, in draft, which contained the wording which the Chief Constable proposed to substitute for the words contained on the ECRC.
The draft enclosed was considerably longer than the entry on the ECRC. Nonetheless it is necessary to quote it in full. It reads:—
“1. On 7 February 2005 at the Redditch Magistrates Court the Applicant was tried and acquitted of five 5 public act order offences.
2. Six different women alleged that they saw a man jogging in the Lickey Hills on dates between November 2003 and 14 March 2004. They alleged that the man was wearing a vest but no shorts and that the man wished them “good morning” as he jogged past.
3. On 14 th March 2004 two of the women saw the Applicant in his silver BMW car in the car park of the Lickey Hills. They took the Applicant's car registration number and told police that the Applicant was the same man they had seen jogging in the Lickey Hills without shorts that morning and on previous occasions. One of these women described the jogger on 14 th March 2004 as wearing a grey vest with black lines down the side.
4. These two witnesses and two other witnesses who attended identity parades did not identify the Applicant in the identity parade. One of the six witnesses did identify the Applicant as the jogger in an identification parade. One witness did not attend an identity parade.
5. The Applicant was arrested on the 14 March 2004 when a grey vest with black stripes down its side was found in the washing basket in the Applicant's bedroom. In interview the Applicant denied all the offences. The Applicant accepted that he had jogged in the Lickey Hills on the morning of 14 th March 2004 and that he had worn the grey vest with back stripes down the side. The Applicant agreed that he had driven to the Lickey Hills in his silver BMW car on 14 th March 2004. The Applicant denied that he had been jogging in the Lickey Hills on other occasions when the offences are alleged to have been committed.
6. On 7 th February 2005 at the Redditch Magistrates Court the Applicant was tried and acquitted of all 5 public order act offences arising from these allegations. The Applicant called a witness to give evidence that he could not have been in the Lickey Hills on one or more of the other occasions when the offences are alleged to have been committed because he was elsewhere.
7. The police conclude that notwithstanding the Applicant's acquittal the allegations against the Applicant might be true because the police do not have any adverse information about the witnesses which causes the police to question the credibility or motive of the witnesses who identified the Applicant.
8. The police consider that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of AR) v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police and Another Disclosure and Barring Service (Interested Party)
...cases involving acquittals it was not thought to argue that the disclosure constituted a breach of Article 6(2). (I refer to R (S) v West Mercia Constabulary [2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin) and R (RK) v South Yorkshire Police, the decision of Coulson J previously referred to.) In the S case, Wyn W......
-
Desmond v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
...in this judgment in which challenges have been made to ECRCs. Another decision of Wyn Williams J in this category – R(S) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin)– on which Mr Desmond relies and which he drew to the judge's attention in the present case, was a s......
-
R (on the application of AR) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and another
...in a court of law (in certain circumstances)”. That is supported by a quotation from the judgment of Wyn Williams J in R (S) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin): “I do not suggest for one minute that allegations should not be disclosed in an ECRC simply b......
-
KC’s Application
...EWHC 2721 Admin; R (L) v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2014] EWHC 463 Admin, and R (S) v Chief Constable of West Merica Police [2008] EWHC 2811 Admin. In each case it will, however, be necessary to consider the particular circumstances. [63] In this case the broad circumstances are as set......
-
‘Too Well-Travelled’, Not Well-Formed? The Reform of ‘Criminality Information Sharing’ in the UK
...vA City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 403 and R (on the applicationof S) v Chief Constable of West Mercia [2008] EWHC 2811(Admin); Official Transcript; QBD (Admin).46 The Police Journal, Volume 86 (2013) 9. Public protection values are sometimes conflated narrowly withvalues of human rights pro......
-
Necessary Intrusion or Criminalising the Innocent? An Exploration of Modern Criminal Vetting
...L) (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis(Respondent) [2009] UKSC 3 at [42].39 See Mason, above n. 23 at 24.40 [2008] EWHC 2811 (Admin).The Journal of Criminal only a part of the recruitment process. Secondly, there is no opportunity forthe applicant to challenge any of......