Supreme Court Establishes Framework for Disclosure of Acquitted Allegations in Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates

Introduction

The case of AR, R (on the application of) v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police & Anor ([2018] UKSC 47) centers on the legality of including information about criminal charges for which an individual has been acquitted in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC). The appellant, AR, was acquitted of a rape charge but found that the ECRC issued by the Greater Manchester Police still contained details of the charge and acquittal. AR challenged this disclosure, asserting that it violated his rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Articles 6.2 and 8.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court upheld the legality of the ECRC's disclosure under Article 8 of the ECHR, which concerns the right to respect for private and family life. The Court determined that the disclosure did not breach AR's rights as the interference was justified by the need to protect vulnerable individuals. The judgment also clarified the appellate courts' role in reviewing proportionality assessments made by lower courts, emphasizing restraint and adherence to the original decision unless a significant error of principle is identified.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and legal principles:

L's case (R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3): Established foundational principles regarding the disclosure of non-conviction information in ECRCs.
X's case (R (X) v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 1068): Addressed the disclosure of allegations that did not lead to a conviction.
In re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33: Provided guidance on the appellate courts' role in reviewing proportionality.
Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group [2003] 1 WLR 577: Discussed the appellate court's reluctance to interfere with discretionary decisions unless a clear error is identified.

These precedents collectively shaped the Court's approach to balancing individual rights against public safety needs.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning focused on Article 8 of the ECHR, which safeguards individuals' rights to privacy and family life. The Court acknowledged that while the disclosure of allegations subsequent to an acquittal does impact AR's private life, it is permissible under the Convention if justified by the protection of others. The key points in the Court's reasoning included:

Proportionality Test: The Court emphasized that any interference with Article 8 rights must be proportionate. This involves balancing AR's privacy against the need to protect vulnerable groups from potential harm.
Role of Appellate Courts: Appellate courts should primarily review whether a significant error of principle exists in the lower court's decision rather than reassessing proportionality de novo.
Public Record Consideration: Information about charges and acquittals is a matter of public record, and employers may seek to verify this information independently.
Employment Impact: While the disclosure adversely affected AR's employment prospects, the Court found that this detriment was outweighed by the importance of safeguarding vulnerable individuals.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the use of ECRCs, especially concerning information about charges that did not lead to convictions. Key impacts include:

Framework for Future Disclosures: Establishes a clear framework for when and how allegations leading to acquittals can be included in ECRCs.
Appellate Review Standards: Clarifies that appellate courts should refrain from independent proportionality assessments unless a significant legal error is evident.
Protection vs. Privacy: Reinforces the balance between individual privacy rights and the societal need to protect vulnerable populations.
Guidance for Police and Employers: Indicates the necessity for clear guidelines on handling and interpreting ECRCs, especially regarding acquitted allegations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC)

An ECRC is a comprehensive criminal record check that includes not only convictions and cautions but also additional information deemed relevant, such as charges that did not result in a conviction. Its primary use is in situations requiring high trust, such as employment in sensitive roles.

Article 8 of the ECHR

Article 8 protects individuals' rights to respect for their private and family life, home, and correspondence. Any interference with these rights by public authorities must be lawful and proportionate.

Proportionality

Proportionality is a legal principle used to balance individual rights against the public interest. It ensures that any infringement on rights is justified, necessary, and not excessive in achieving a legitimate aim.

Presumption of Innocence (Article 6.2)

This principle dictates that individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It ensures fair treatment during legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in AR, R (on the application of) v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police & Anor underscores the delicate balance between individual privacy rights and the societal imperative to protect vulnerable groups from potential harm. By upholding the inclusion of acquitted allegations in ECRCs, the Court affirmed that such disclosures are permissible when they serve a compelling public interest and are proportionate to the interference with personal privacy. This judgment not only provides clarity on the application of ECHR rights in the context of criminal record disclosures but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar conflicts between individual rights and public safety.