AB v A Chief Constable (Rev 1)
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Data Protection
- Public Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
AB, a senior police officer, applied for a new job and received a standard reference from his former Force that omitted his sickness and disciplinary records. The Chief Constable argued a duty to send a second, more detailed reference. Ultimately, the court held that while public law duties generally demand full disclosure, they could not override AB's legitimate expectations or data protection principles in this case.
Judgment
Mr Justice Cranston :
I INTRODUCTION
In outline the claimant, AB, was a senior police officer with the defendant Chief Constable’s police force (“the Force”). He applied to a Regulatory Body for a job. A Regulatory Body has, as one aspect of its functions, ensuring the professional standards of individuals it regulates and deciding who can be disciplined and ultimately prevented from working in the area. The Force sent a standard reference which did not answer questions in the Regulatory Body’s reference request raising the claimant’s sickness and disciplinary record. The Regulatory Body gave the claimant the job and he resigned from the Force. In a novel argument the Chief Constable contends that he was under a legal duty in both private and public law to send a second reference with this information. The claimant’s case is that the Chief Constable is under no such duty. If the Chief Constable is correct and there is a legal duty the claimant contends that to send the second reference would be in breach of data protection principles and his legitimate expectations.
II BACKGROUND
The Force
The police force in these proceedings (“the Force”) covers one of the counties in England and Wales. As with other police forces in the country it has both warranted police officers and police staff. The latter are under the direction and control of the Chief Constable, as well as the warranted officers. In 2012 the Force was organised as follows. Immediately under the Chief Constable was the Deputy Chief Constable, CD. At the next level were Assistant Chief Constables E and F and Assistant Chief Officer GH. These five persons constituted the Force’s executive. They were at the level to be members of the Association of Chief Police Officers. They occupied a suite of offices in close proximity in the same corridor at police headquarters. Each could contact the others simultaneously on the one email address. Below the ACPO Chief Officers were a number of chief superintendants, including the claimant.
Deputy Chief Constable CD was the decision maker (“the appropriate authority” under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 , now the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012) in relation to disciplinary matters concerning the claimant. As a result of events which had happened during his time at a previous Force, CD was under an investigation. When CD came to make an application to move to another role CD disclosed details of the investigation before applying and discus