The information disclosed in an ECRC is information the relevant chief constable considers "might be relevant" and "ought to be included". It can include allegations about criminal or other behaviour which have not been substantiated whether in the courts in regulatory proceedings, or otherwise, (so called 'soft information'), as well as details of any recorded convictions. As the Court of Appeal noted in this case, the effect of disclosing such information is often, in practice, the end of any opportunity for the individual to be employed in an area for which an ECRC is required.

In this case the disclosure in the ECRC recorded that criminal charges had been brought against A in respect of the allegations but at the Crown Court no evidence was offered, she was found not guilty of the charges, and the case was dismissed.

The High Court held that the disclosure amounted to a disproportionate interference with A's right to respect for her private life and was therefore an unlawful interference with her right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"). She stated ([2013] EWHC 424 (Admin) at [81]) that, despite an impressive record of employment as a senior nurse, the disclosure prevented A from obtaining permanent full-time employment in her profession, and that its impact on her was, and would continue to be, grave.

The High Court order quashed the decision to disclose the information, declared that the decision to disclose it constituted an unlawful interference with A's right pursuant to Article 8, and ordered damages to be assessed at a subsequent hearing.

The Chief Constable appealed on the grounds that the HC judge conducted an impermissible paper trial of the merits, making findings of fact including findings about the reliability of witnesses and that the judge erred in relying on material which could not have been available to the Chief Constable at the time the decision to disclose was made or on the date of the disclosure.

The Court of Appeal has rejected the appeal, though not without some criticism of the HC judge's approach. Nonetheless it found the decision to disclose in the terms of the ECRC was disproportionate. http://bit.ly/1dAb9iu Practical lessons from this decision: This case and that of the EAT in A v Z [2013] UKEAT 0380_13_1211 could have a big impact on the way the police disclose information to the relevant authorities with caring responsibilities for vulnerable persons (and, therefore, on the information received) and we would advise readers who work in these areas to read the judgements.