Simba-Tola v Oxfordshire Probation Services

On an application for permission to appeal concerning disclosure, it is arguable that a court cannot properly determine relevance, necessity for the fair disposal of proceedings, and public-interest confidentiality without examining the documents sought. Where disclosure is sought from confidential personal files, the court should assess whether they contain information beyond material already disclosed and whether confidentiality justifies withholding relevant material. The guidance in Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028 is relevant to that assessment.

The claimant brought proceedings under the Race Relations Act 1976 concerning alleged discrimination at a hostel. She sought disclosure of personal files relating to other residents, including records of violent or racist incidents and failures to comply with hostel rules.

The Oxford County Court refused disclosure. The recorder applied the principles in Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028, but did not inspect the personal files sought. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was an arguable case that he could not properly exercise his discretion without examining those documents.

1. Permission granted. The application concerned only the refusal of disclosure; no appeal was sought in relation to the order requiring witness statements.
2. The applicable disclosure questions were whether the documents were relevant to an issue in the proceedings and, in any event, whether disclosure was necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings.
3. The recorder had considered the applicant’s own file, but had not examined the personal files of the other residents. It was arguable that this prevented a proper assessment of whether those files contained information additional to that already recorded in the disclosed log book.
4. It was also arguable that the recorder could not properly decide whether the public interest required the files to remain confidential, despite their possible relevance, without examining the documents themselves. The guidelines in Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028 were material to that issue.
5. The matter was sufficiently arguable to justify permission. The listing and transcript were expedited, and a copy of the transcript was provided to the applicant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted against the decision of Mr Recorder Hungerford, sitting at Oxford County Court on 1 March 2001.
• Oxford County Court: The recorder dismissed an appeal from District Judge Payne’s disclosure-related order and refused disclosure of the documents sought.