XX, R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant, a convicted sex offender, challenged the legality of South Yorkshire police's retention and disclosure of his data under various schemes. The court held that the schemes are lawful and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 8. Any interference with the Claimant's rights was deemed justifiable and necessary for public safety and crime prevention. Despite the Claimant's contentions, the court found the policies to be non-arbitrary and adequately protective against misuse.
Judgment
Mr Justice Dingemans :
Introduction
These claims raise issues relating to the legality of arrangements made by the police in South Yorkshire for the retention and disclosure of information and data relating to the Claimant, who is a convicted sex offender. Schemes and guidance under which information is held and provision for disclosure is made by the police include: (1) the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (“the CSOD scheme”); (2) the Guidance on the Management of Police Information. The phrase “Management of Police Information” is often referred to in the evidence as “MoPI”; and (3) MAPPA Guidance. MAPPA means Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The MAPPA Guidance is issued pursuant to section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“ the 2003 Act ”).
The First Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is responsible for having set up the CSOD scheme, which has been adopted by all the Chief Constables in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has also issued a Code of Practice for the Management of Police Information pursuant to statutory powers.
The Claimant is resident in the South Yorkshire police area, and the Second Defendant, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (“the Chief Constable”) and police officers for whom he is responsible hold relevant data relating to the Claimant.
The Third Defendant, the Association of Chief Police Officers (“ACPO”), was responsible for the MoPI Guidance, which was produced on its behalf by the National Policing Improvement Agency.
The Fourth Defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, has statutory responsibilities for MAPPA and has issued MAPPA Guidance.
The Claimant
It has been “ emphasised on many occasions that cases of this kind turn heavily on their particular facts” , see paragraph 5 of R(Catt) v ACPO and others [2013] EWCA Civ 192 ; [2013] 1 WLR 3305 . I therefore set out factual matters relating to the Claimant.
The Claimant has five convictions for indecent assault. The first two of those convictions were assaults on a female aged under 14, and he was sentenced to 2 years concurrent on each count. The relevant circumstances are that in the period leading up to March 1991 the Claimant befriended a mother bringing up three children, including the victim who was aged 8. The assaults had taken place when the Claimant was babysitting the children. The Claimant was released from prison in 1993.
After his release from prison the Cla