Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Police interview material is confidential, but confidentiality is not absolute. Disclosure to a professional or regulatory body may be justified where the body investigates serious matters affecting public health or safety and the police reasonably consider the material relevant. The competing public interests must be balanced, including the individual’s interest in confidentiality and the public interest in effective regulation.

The primary decision whether to disclose rests with the police holding the material. The affected person should normally be given sufficient notice to seek court assistance. Disclosure should be limited to the regulatory inquiry, with the existing confidentiality otherwise preserved.

A registered nurse was arrested and interviewed by police after the death of a patient. The police decided that the evidence did not justify criminal charges, but the relevant professional regulator later investigated wider allegations concerning the nurse’s conduct and sought access to the interview.

The nurse refused consent and obtained an injunction application against disclosure. Astill J dismissed the application on 3 September 1998. The appeal concerned whether the public interest in effective professional regulation could justify non-consensual disclosure of confidential police interview material and, if so, who should decide whether disclosure was appropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The interview was confidential, and the appellant was entitled to expect that confidentiality generally would be respected. That expectation did not create an absolute bar to disclosure.
2. Where a regulatory body operating in the field of public health and safety seeks confidential police material, disclosure may be justified by a countervailing public interest if the police are reasonably persuaded that the material is relevant to the regulator’s inquiry. The material may be disclosed for that inquiry, subject to preserving its confidentiality for other purposes.
3. The same principle may apply even without a formal request. If the police reasonably consider that confidential information should, in the interests of public health or safety, be considered by a professional or regulatory body, they may pass it to that body for consideration.
4. The decision requires a balance between competing public interests. The reasonableness of the police assessment may, in an appropriate case, be challenged. The regulatory body may apply to the court if the police refuse disclosure and it knows that relevant information exists.
5. The primary decision on disclosure belongs to the police holding the material, rather than the court. The police should normally notify the affected person in sufficient time to seek assistance from the court, although notification may not always be practicable or desirable.
6. The approach was consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, since disclosure may be necessary for public safety, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Lord Justice Otton and Lord Justice Waller agreed with Lord Justice Kennedy. The order was: appeal dismissed; the first respondents to have their costs; and UKCC to have the costs of leading counsel only.

• Court of Appeal: Appeal from the decision of Astill J dated 3 September 1998. The appeal was dismissed.
• High Court: Astill J dismissed the application for an order restraining disclosure of the police interview to UKCC.