A vexatious litigant was granted permission to start judicial review proceedings in respect of a refusal by the Central Criminal Court to deal with his request for information under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.5.8. The question whether such a request could be characterised as the instituting of “civil proceedings” in a “court” under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.42(1)(a) was left open.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
A police officer’s inadvertent disclosure of a prison assessment report, which attracted public interest immunity by virtue of being part of the multi-agency public protection arrangements scheme, was not capable of interfering with the report’s public interest immunity status.
Information that could be included in an enhanced criminal record certificate under the Police Act 1997 s.115(7) was information that was “relevant” and “might be true” and there was no requirement that the information was actually true. The decision whether or not to include such information was for the chief officer of police, and the ultimate decision as to what use to make of the information was for the prospective employer.
There was no distinction for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 s.115(7) between conduct that, if proved, would amount to a criminal offence and conduct that, even if proved, would not amount to a criminal offence. Consequently, where an enhanced criminal record certificate was required by an employer in the course of considering an applicant’s suitability for a position involving the custody of children under s.115(3), the chief police officer was entitled to disclose any information that might in his opinion be relevant even if it related to activity that was not criminal.
The Secretary of State for Health had been entitled to refuse public access to two inquiries that he had instigated into serious malpractice and criminal conduct by doctors.