AR, R (On the Application Of) v The Greater Manchester Police & Anor

Disclosure of an acquittal in an enhanced criminal record certificate engages article 8 where it may affect employment, livelihood and private life. Disclosure is lawful where the information is not lacking in substance, it is reasonable to believe that it might be true, and disclosure is proportionate to protecting children or vulnerable adults. An acquittal establishes that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; it does not necessarily establish that the allegation was false.

Article 6(2) is not breached by lawful disclosure which indicates only that the alleged acts might have occurred, without casting doubt on the correctness of the acquittal.

The claimant sought judicial review of an enhanced criminal record certificate issued for an application for a private hire driver’s licence. The certificate disclosed an allegation of rape for which he had been acquitted. The same information had previously been disclosed in connection with proposed teaching employment.

He alleged breaches of article 8 through disclosure and retention of the information, procedural unfairness through failure to consult, and breach of the presumption of innocence under article 6(2). The central questions were whether the disclosure and retention were lawful and proportionate, and whether disclosure unlawfully treated him as guilty despite his acquittal.

1. Article 8 engagement. The disclosure engaged article 8 because an enhanced certificate could prevent employment in the claimant’s chosen fields, affect his ability to earn a living and have serious repercussions for private life.
2. Proportionality and disclosure. The statutory test required consideration both of relevance and whether the information ought to be included. The court had to balance the pressing social need to protect children and vulnerable adults against the claimant’s private-life rights. The information was not lacking in substance, and it was reasonable to believe that it might be true. The acquittal showed only that guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Chief Constable was entitled to rely on the seriousness of the allegation, its relevance to private hire driving, its comparative recency, and supporting evidence. A full trial transcript was not required.
3. Procedure. The absence of consultation before the 2012 certificate did not make the decision unlawful. The claimant had previously made representations, those matters were taken into account, and he identified no further substantive points which consultation would have raised.
4. Retention. Retention of the acquittal information for legitimate police purposes was, at most, a small and proportionate interference. MM v United Kingdom (13 November 2012) was distinguishable because it concerned much older information and a caution administered in private.
5. Article 6(2). Disclosure did not imply that the claimant was guilty or that the acquittal was wrong. It indicated only that, notwithstanding the acquittal, he might have committed the alleged acts.
6. Disposition. The claim for judicial review failed.

First-instance judicial review. No prior appellate decision in the same proceedings is stated.