A, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of C Constabulary

Judgment

The Hon. Mr. Justice Coulson:

1. INTRODUCTION

The claimant (“A”) is a sole trader who provides, amongst other things, vehicle hire, breakdown and recovery services. For over 30 years he has provided recovery and breakdown services to B and C Constabularies, either directly or, more recently, as a sub-contractor. His applications for the relevant security clearance have now been refused and he seeks judicial review of those decisions. The application raises an interesting issue as to the appropriate test to be applied by the police when vetting for security those who provide services to them.

This matter has a relatively lengthy history. I propose to summarise the course of the original judicial review proceedings before going on to set out, as briefly as possible, the subsequent events. Having identified the issues, I then set out the relevant parts of the National Vetting Policy for the Police Community (“NVP”) before identifying the correct test to be applied in situations such as this. I then consider the relevant decisions themselves. I am very grateful to Mr Nardell and Ms Barton for their clear and concise written and oral submissions.

2. THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

In 2009, having provided breakdown and recovery services for C Constabulary (“the defendant”), for many years, the claimant was obliged to seek security clearance to continue to act as a sub-contractor to the main contractor Recovery Management Service Limited (“RMSL”). That clearance was duly granted, despite the fact that, as has now come to light, there was some intelligence which suggested that the claimant may have been involved in serious criminal activity. The relevant officer indicated that, at the time, the defendant was prepared to run the risk on continuing to work with A because it was considered to be a low one.

In 2010, the claimant made a similar application for clearance so that he could continue to act as a sub-contractor in the B Constabulary area. That application was refused, without giving the claimant any opportunity to deal with the matters that gave rise to the decision, and without any reasons being provided. Accordingly, the claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. In those proceedings it became apparent that clearance was refused because of the claimant’s alleged association with serious criminal activity. This was based on intelligence rather than anything more specific.

In his judgment, date 26 July 2012, Kenneth Parker J had litt