[2018] EWHC 2533 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2533 (Admin)

Police officers had been acting in the execution of their duty when they arrested an individual for an imminent breach of the peace following his aggression towards them. Although they had previously told him they might arrest him for breach of the peace if he did not leave his parents’ home, that had not been the breach of the peace for which he had been arrested, so he had not been resisting an unlawful arrest.

[2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin)

A decision by Thames Valley Police that there was insufficient evidence to justify action against a local authority for fraud, forgery, copyright infringement, perjury and perverting the course of justice was not flawed. The police had carried out a proper and independent investigation into allegations that the local authority had created an inaccurate plan to support enforcement action and that it had been dishonest as to how the plan came about.

A claimant failed to show that disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates of an allegation of sexual assault of which he had been acquitted was disproportionate and inaccurate.

[2018] UKSC 47 [2018] UKSC 47

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.

[2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch)

As a starting point, as a matter of general principle, a suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to a police investigation, which was not removed merely because the information had reached the hands of the media. The BBC was liable to Sir Cliff Richard for infringing his privacy rights by broadcasting the fact that he was the subject of a police investigation and that his property was being searched in connection with the investigation. The BBC was ordered to pay general damages, including aggravated damages, of £210,000.