L, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 permits disclosure of any information which, in the chief officer’s opinion, might be relevant to an employer considering a person for work involving regular care, training, supervision or sole charge of children or vulnerable people. The information need not concern criminal or potentially criminal conduct. Evidence of neglect, incompetence or negligence may qualify. The chief officer decides whether information might be relevant and ought to be disclosed; the employer assesses its weight and significance. Article 8 does not ordinarily require the chief officer to conduct the employer’s suitability assessment. Disclosure is ordinarily lawful where the information is potentially relevant, subject to exceptional disproportionality or other untoward circumstances.

Two applications for judicial review concerned enhanced criminal record certificates issued under section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997. L challenged disclosure of information concerning alleged neglect and inability to supervise her son, after she applied for work supervising children in a school. G challenged disclosure concerning the death of a vulnerable pupil who left a special-needs school while she was head teacher; she had been acquitted of manslaughter.

The central issue was whether information about neglect or negligence which did not amount to a criminal offence could be relevant information for section 115(7). The court also considered whether the particular disclosures were irrational, disproportionate or otherwise unlawful.

1. Both claims dismissed. The disclosures were lawful under section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997.
2. The statutory language is deliberately broad. “Any information” means any information which, in the chief officer’s opinion, might be relevant to the applicant’s suitability for a position involving regular care, training, supervision or sole charge of children. Parliament did not limit the provision to criminal or potentially criminal activity. Information may be relevant even where the conduct was non-criminal, including neglect, incompetence, error of judgment or negligence.
3. The criminal, civil and family-law standards are different. Criminal liability for neglect may require wilfulness or recklessness and may focus on physical harm. Family law and civil law address wider forms of harm and apply less stringent or objective standards. Those distinctions do not prevent the underlying information from being relevant under section 115(7).
4. In L’s case, the police were entitled to rely on particularised and sourced information from child-protection records, while excluding rumour and conjecture. The history of inability to supervise her own child could reasonably be regarded as highly relevant to proposed work supervising children. The police were not required to decide L’s suitability or assess the weight of the information; that was for the prospective employer.
5. In G’s case, the chief officer was entitled to disclose information about the circumstances in which a vulnerable pupil died, despite G’s acquittal and the absence of criminal responsibility. The question was whether the information might be relevant, not whether G had committed an offence. The decision-maker considered the acquittal and was entitled to conclude that the information might concern suitability for future work with children.
6. Article 8 was engaged at least by assumption, but the statutory scheme was Convention-compliant. Disclosure would ordinarily be justified where information might be relevant, absent exceptional disproportionality, triviality, extreme improbability or another untoward circumstance. The endnote left open separate issues concerning confidentiality and the dissemination of child-protection information.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision is stated for these claims.