The appellant, AR, was a qualified teacher. He was charged with the rape of a teenage girl while working as a taxi driver in 2009. A jury found him not guilty and he was acquitted. He subsequently applied for various teaching jobs, which required an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC) under s.113B of the Police Act 1997, but was unsuccessful. The ECRC included details of the allegations made against him and that he was found not guilty of the offence.

AR sought to challenge the content of the certificate and appealed under the police complaints procedure. Dismissing the appeal, the reviewing officer noted acquittal was not proof of innocence, it merely confirmed that guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. She went on to state the alleged incident was of a serious nature and the potential risk to vulnerable people outweighed the effect of disclosure on AR’s human rights.

AR applied for judicial review arguing his right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR had been breached. The High Court rejected this, stating the interference with AR’s private life was proportionate and ‘no more than necessary to meet the pressing social need for children and vulnerable adults to be protected.’ In addition, AR argued to include the disputed information was procedurally unfair as the police failed to consult him. The Court rejected this stating no injustice had been suffered by AR. AR subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Delivering judgment Lord Carnwath held “the information about the charge and acquittal was in no way secret. It was a matter of public record, and might have come to a potential employer’s knowledge from other sources.”

He expressed postscript concerns about the ECRC procedure in that there is no clear guidance as to what weight should be given to an acquittal in different circumstances and how an ECRC is likely to be treated by a potential employer. The Chief Constable averred an ECRC is only part of the information available to a prospective employer. However, according to Lord Neuberger in R (on application of L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3 an adverse ECRC is likely to be a “killer blow” to an application.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-judgment.pdf