Webster & Ors v Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School

In an application for specific disclosure, the court must assess the relevance of the redacted material itself. Disclosure of a document in redacted form does not concede that every concealed part is relevant. Even relevant material may be withheld where a right or duty to withhold inspection applies, or where inspection would be disproportionate. Where disclosure would identify children, the court must consider their Article 8 rights, the claimants’ Article 6 right to a fair trial, and the necessity and proportionality of the interference. A tailored anonymised identifier may provide a proportionate alternative to revealing names. A document mentioned in a witness statement is ordinarily subject to inspection, but that right remains subject to the qualifications in CPR r.31.3.

The claimants sought specific disclosure from the governors of a school in negligence proceedings arising from a serious assault on the first claimant by pupils and adults on school premises. They sought unredacted pupil names from various school records, disclosure of risk assessments, and inspection of a behavioural database, manuals and related policies.

The application raised issues concerning relevance, proportionality, the privacy rights of pupils, the claimants’ right to a fair trial, and the effect of mentioning the database in witness statements. The police disclosure application was adjourned by agreement, and one part of the application was not pursued.

1. Specific disclosure and redactions. The court assessed whether the concealed material, rather than merely the document as a whole, was relevant. Disclosure in redacted form did not amount to a concession that every redacted passage was relevant. Inspection could also be resisted where there was a right or duty to withhold it, or where inspection was disproportionate under CPR r.31.3.
2. Privacy and fair trial. Disclosure identifying pupils would interfere with their Article 8 rights. The interference had to pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society, including being proportionate to the aim. The court also took account of the claimants’ Article 6 right to a fair trial and the fact that the persons concerned were children. The decisive question was whether disclosure of names was necessary for a fair trial or fair disposal of the proceedings.
3. Orders on the records. Broad requests for staff minutes and exclusion records were refused as unfocused or overbroad. Requests concerning racial-tension material and certain reported racial incidents were sufficiently targeted for a different order. The defendants were required to provide unique identifiers which disclosed the relevant pupil’s race or ethnicity, so far as known, without generally revealing names. Later incidents and requests for victims’ identities or medical records were not sufficiently relevant or necessary.
4. Reports Manager database. A database was a document and its mention in witness statements would ordinarily trigger inspection. Following the reasoning in Rubin v Expandable Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 11108, that consequence remained subject to CPR r.31.3. Inspection was refused because disclosure of pupil names would unjustifiably interfere with Article 8 rights, and inspection or redaction of the extensive database would be disproportionate to any likely benefit.
5. The specific-disclosure application was rejected in relation to the database and the other matters identified above, subject to the limited identifier orders.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in this litigation.