Segalov, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Anor

Police accreditation decisions must be based on an operative and sufficiently clear policy. Where refusal may adversely affect political engagement or professional activity, fairness will ordinarily require disclosure of the gist of the reasons and an opportunity to make representations. That requirement may yield to genuine security sensitivities, such as terrorism risks.

The initial police screening process attracted no separate duty of procedural fairness where it merely referred applications for consideration by the host force. No elevated threshold applied simply because the applicant was a journalist. The relevant assessment was a rational and proportionate assessment of risk to conference safety. Data protection principles did not provide an alternative route to resolve disputed factual accuracy in judicial review.

Michael Segalov, a political journalist, challenged the refusal of his accreditation to attend the 2017 Labour Party Conference. The National Accreditation Team, operating within Greater Manchester Police, screened applications and referred his application to Sussex Police, which was the host force and made the refusal decision.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness, reliance on an unpublished policy, application of the wrong test, breach of article 8 of the ECHR and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The central issues were whether either police force owed him a duty of procedural fairness, what information and opportunity to respond that duty required, and whether the data protection arguments could be resolved in judicial review.

1. Outcome. The claim against GMP failed. The claim against Sussex Police succeeded. The refusal process was declared unlawful and the refusal decision was quashed. Further orders were reserved for written submissions.
2. GMP’s role. The National Accreditation Team operated as a national sifting mechanism. It gathered and collated intelligence, approved most applications or referred cases for closer consideration, but had no power to refuse accreditation. Its referral decision was not itself an adverse decision attracting the common law duty of procedural fairness. The reasoning in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 115 supported that distinction.
3. Sussex Police’s role. Sussex Police had not demonstrated an operative policy or applicable criteria for deciding referred applications. The National Accreditation Standard did not supply adequate assessment criteria, and the decision was not recorded contemporaneously. In the circumstances, fairness required the claimant to receive the gist of the reasons for concern and an opportunity to make representations. The court applied the principle stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 532. A terrorism assessment or comparable sensitivity might justify withholding reasons, but that issue did not arise.
4. Applicable threshold. The court rejected an elevated threshold derived from employment-related vetting cases. Accreditation for a four-day event had different consequences from exclusion from employment in an entire sector. The decision-maker could give considerable weight to safety, while the applicant’s status as an established journalist remained an important factor. The claimant’s failure to intervene or walk away from the alleged restaurant incident could not properly be treated as adverse to him on the evidence.
5. Convention and data protection issues. Article 8 was engaged by retaining information and refusing accreditation, but the article 8 arguments added nothing material. Processing the claimant’s personal data was within the Data Protection Act 1998, including sensitive personal data. Section 29(1)(a) provided a qualified exemption where applying fairness and lawfulness requirements would be likely to prejudice crime prevention. The relevant Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 conditions required necessity, importing proportionality. Allegations of inaccurate or incomplete data required fact-finding and were unsuitable for determination in judicial review; any such claim, including compensation, should be brought under Part 7 of the CPR.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). The claim against Greater Manchester Police failed. The claim against Sussex Police succeeded, with a declaration of unlawfulness and quashing of the refusal decision.