Warwickshire County Council v BN & Ors

Police authorities must justify each redaction from otherwise disclosable material by reference to relevance, privacy, confidentiality, fair-trial rights and strict necessity. Generalised assertions about witness protection, data protection or confidentiality are insufficient. Any restriction must go no further than necessary and must be supported by a clear explanation of the particular document or class of documents affected. The disclosure process under the relevant protocols should be handled consensually and promptly. Unjustified redactions which cause delay, unnecessary hearings or public expense may lead to a costs order against the police.

Warwickshire County Council brought public law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 concerning two children. The Family Court made several Police Disclosure Orders requiring Warwickshire Police to provide material, including unredacted disclosure and interview recordings.

The police sought to maintain extensive redactions, including the names of police officers, doctors, hospitals and other third parties, relying on generalised concerns about witness protection, confidentiality, data protection and prejudice to the criminal investigation. The police applied to set aside or vary the order. Before the hearing, they conceded that all redactions should be removed, making the issue academic. The High Court nevertheless considered the proper approach because the dispute had caused delay and significant public expense.

1. Disclosure principles. The general powers of disclosure under the Family Procedure Rules and the disclosure protocols require relevance to be established first. If relevance is established, the person seeking exemption must justify it. The court must then balance fair-trial rights against privacy and confidentiality interests, and refusal of disclosure or inspection is permitted only where strictly necessary.
2. Restrictions. A restriction may take the form of redaction, a confidentiality ring, anonymity or another protective order, but it must be proportionate and no wider than strictly necessary. Those seeking restriction bear a heavy burden and must identify precisely the documents or classes of documents requiring protection.
3. Application. The police had not made a public interest immunity application or initially provided any justification for the redactions. The later statement relied on generalised assertions and did not withstand scrutiny. The routine removal of all third-party names, including plainly disclosable medical professionals and hospitals, showed that the redactions had been made without considering whether each was justified.
4. The 2013 and 2024 disclosure protocols contemplated a consensual process dealing with relevance, redaction and public interest immunity promptly. The police continued to maintain the redactions until the eve of the hearing, despite the proceedings having reached an advanced stage.
5. The police had acted unreasonably and their approach had caused delay and substantial waste of public funds. No party sought costs, but the court stated that there would have been a strong case for a costs order against the police, particularly because legally aided parties owe duties to the Legal Aid fund.

First-instance decision. The judgment describes earlier Police Disclosure Orders made in the Family Court but does not state any appellate history.