B, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Section 117 of the Police Act 1997 permits correction of information that is inaccurate, not a rehearing of the truth or merits of an allegation recorded in an enhanced criminal record certificate. Relevance, the possibility that information may be true, and whether it ought to be included are matters principally assigned to the chief officer under section 115(7). A certificate may nevertheless be inaccurate if it is materially misleading through omission or later events. The statutory scheme is Convention-compliant, and Article 8 does not require the CRB to assume the chief officer’s evaluative role.

B applied for judicial review of the CRB’s refusal to amend an enhanced criminal record certificate. The certificate recorded historic convictions and information concerning allegations that he had raped his daughter, her removal from his care, and her rape by another man. B argued that section 117 required the CRB to decide whether the underlying allegations were true or sufficiently founded, and that disclosure otherwise infringed Article 8.

The central issue was the meaning of inaccurate information in section 117(2) of the Police Act 1997, and the allocation of responsibility between the CRB and the chief officer of police.

1. Claim dismissed. The CRB’s refusal to amend the certificate was lawful.
2. Section 117(2) concerns whether the information contained in the certificate is accurate. It does not require the CRB to determine whether an allegation recorded in the certificate is true. If a certificate accurately states that an allegation was made, it remains accurate whether or not the allegation is true. The power extends to inaccuracies in any information in the certificate.
3. Under section 115(7), the chief officer decides whether information might be relevant and ought to be included. Section 117 gives the Secretary of State a correcting function after issue of the certificate. Requiring the CRB to investigate the weight, relevance or truth of allegations would confuse those roles.
4. The scheme is Convention-compliant. Article 8 does not require section 117 to be construed as transferring the chief officer’s evaluative function to the CRB.
5. The CRB may issue a new certificate where information is initially or subsequently rendered materially misleading through suggestio falsi or supressio veri. That power may arise even without an application under section 117(1), provided the CRB considers the information inaccurate when it forms its opinion.
6. On the facts, the Commissioner was entitled to conclude that the allegations might be true and might be relevant. The claim was dismissed.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim in the Administrative Court. Permission was refused against the Commissioner of Police but granted against the Secretary of State: [2005] EWHC 3212 (Admin). The claim against the Secretary of State was dismissed.