There had been no objective necessity to arrest an individual who had voluntarily attended a police station in respect of an allegation of harassment, notwithstanding the fact that the low threshold required for the arresting officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of an offence had been crossed.
The maintenance of public confidence was not a discrete, free-standing element of the investigative obligation imposed on state authorities by ECHR art.2. In cases concerning possible police misconduct, there was no duty to suspend the suspected officer; Member States had a margin of appreciation in that respect.
The Supreme Court considered the revised statutory schemes for the disclosure of convictions in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Police Act 1997. The schemes were in accordance with the law for the purposes of ECHR art.8 and, with the exception of provisions in relation to the multiple conviction rule and warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders, it was not possible to say that the categories in the schemes were disproportionate.
The National Crime Agency had complied with its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 when using information obtained from a police force as part of an information-sharing practice between law enforcement agencies in disciplinary proceedings which resulted in an employee’s dismissal for gross misconduct.
In the context of prosecution appeals against rulings in respect of a trial, the Court of Appeal held that the notification requirements in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.58(4) and s.58(8) could be satisfied by email. It also held that the exemption from prosecution for police constables set out in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.10(3) did not apply unless the constable was using the dog in question in a directed task, or for an identifiable purpose, as part of a policing activity.