The inclusion in an enhanced criminal record certificate of details of an individual’s acquittal on a charge of rape was a proportionate interference with that individual’s rights under ECHR art.8. In so deciding, the Supreme Court clarified when an appellate court could make a fresh determination as to proportionality, noted the lack of guidance to potential employers on how to treat ECRCs containing details of acquittals, and indicated that careful thought should be given to the value of disclosing allegations that had been tested in court and resulted in acquittal.
A district judge had been correct to refuse to order the Crown to disclose a sample of blood taken from a motorist who had been arrested for driving under the influence of cannabis. The motorist had declined to take the sample when it was offered to him in compliance with the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.15(5) and his application had been a fishing expedition made in the hope that it might undermine the prosecution’s case.
Application of the “multiple conviction rule” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 art.2A(3)(c) and the Police Act 1997 s.113A and s.113B, requiring disclosure of spent convictions, resulted in an interference with ECHR art.8 which was neither in accordance with the law nor necessary in a democratic society.
The court prohibited the use, by the subject of a search warrant or his lawyers, of redacted material which had been improperly disclosed to those lawyers by a police commissioner who had failed to obtain the prior approval of the National Crime Agency. The material was not to be used in judicial review proceedings brought by way of challenge to the warrant, but was to be returned to its owner. Any copies, including electronic copies, were to be destroyed.
A university’s decision to exclude a student from a pharmacy degree course on the basis of non-disclosure of criminal convictions received as a juvenile was quashed. The university’s fitness to practise panel’s failure to take into account the student’s considerable mitigation meant that it had not struck a fair balance between his rights and the protection of the public.