AR, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a qualified teacher who was working as a taxi driver, was tried for an alleged rape of a 17-year-old passenger. He was acquitted by a jury in January 2011. When he later applied for posts that required an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC) under section 113B of the Police Act 1997, the certificate disclosed the rape allegation and the subsequent acquittal as “other relevant information.” After internal police reviews upheld disclosure, the Appellant sought judicial review. The High Court dismissed the claim, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and the matter came before the Supreme Court on an appeal limited to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private life).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether including details of a charge that ended in acquittal on an ECRC constitutes a disproportionate interference with the Appellant’s Article 8 rights.
2. What standard an appellate court should apply when reviewing a first-instance judge’s assessment of proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Disclosure of unproven allegations is highly prejudicial and undermines the acquittal, rendering it disproportionate under Article 8.
• The police should have analysed the full trial evidence before deciding that the allegation “might be true”; without such analysis the information lacks reliability.
• The courts below failed to make an independent proportionality assessment and placed excessive weight on the police view.

Respondents' Arguments

• The statutory test requires only that information “might be relevant” and “ought to be included”; it does not mandate a re-trial of the facts.
• Factors such as the seriousness of the alleged offence, its recency, and its relevance to roles involving contact with vulnerable persons justified disclosure.
• The appellate court should intervene only if the first-instance judge’s proportionality analysis contains an error of principle or is otherwise wrong.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Case A v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)	Article 6.2 presumption of innocence; permissible references to acquitted conduct.	Used to confirm that merely stating the fact of an allegation does not breach Article 6.2.
Case B v Secretary of State	State must not undermine the effect of an acquittal.	Cited to test whether the ECRC wording impermissibly questioned the acquittal.
Case C v Commissioner of Police (Supreme Court)	Balancing test for ECRC disclosure: relevance vs. Article 8 impact.	Provided the leading proportionality framework adopted by the Court.
Case D v Chief Constable	Duty to disclose information that “might” be relevant unless disproportionate.	Highlighted earlier, less stringent approach that the Supreme Court said must be read with caution.
Case K (A Child) (Supreme Court)	Scope of appellate review of proportionality findings.	Formed the basis for the Court’s conclusion that appellate intervention is limited to decisions that are wrong or involve error of principle.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court approached the appeal in two stages:

1. Standard of Appellate Review. Drawing on Case K, the Court held that an appellate court should interfere only if the lower-court decision on proportionality is wrong or contains a material flaw. The Court of Appeal erred in using a narrower “significant error of principle” test but nonetheless reached the correct result, because no material flaw existed in the High Court’s reasoning.
2. Proportionality of the Disclosure.
   • The disclosure engaged Article 8 but pursued the legitimate aim of protecting children and vulnerable adults.
   • The Chief Officer’s task is not to conduct a “mini-trial” but to decide whether information might indicate risk; requiring proof on the balance of probabilities would defeat the preventive purpose of ECRCs.
   • The information was recent, concerned an allegation of the utmost seriousness, and was directly relevant to roles involving authority over potentially vulnerable individuals.
   • Although the reviewing officer wrongly equated a CPS charging decision with probability of guilt, the High Court judge recognised that error yet still found disclosure proportionate when all factors were balanced.
   • The Appellant’s employment difficulties were acknowledged, but the societal need to safeguard vulnerable persons outweighed that interference.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal; the disclosure of the allegation and acquittal in the ECRC was a justified and proportionate interference with the Appellant’s Article 8 rights.

Implications: The judgment affirms that:

• ECRCs may lawfully include information about charges that ended in acquittal where the allegation indicates potential risk.
• Chief Officers are not required to resolve factual disputes to a civil standard before disclosure.
• On appeal, proportionality findings will be upheld unless shown to be wrong or based on a material error, reinforcing a deferential review standard.

The decision endorses existing disclosure practices without setting new rules but clarifies the appellate review test and signals that further policy consideration of acquittal disclosures may be appropriate.