Lee McLoughlin v Chief Constable Of Kent Police
[2024] EWHC 990 (KB)
O, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Kent Police
11 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1678 (Admin)
High Court
A dad was wrongly accused of sexually abusing his son. The police closed the case but later added a false allegation of assault without ever asking the dad about it. A judge said this was unfair and illegal, ordering the false accusation to be removed from the police records.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (C) was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting his five-year-old son (X) based on X's statement to his teachers.
- •Subsequent investigation by a specialist officer concluded the touching was for toilet training, not sexual assault.
- •A crime report was initially closed but later reclassified as common assault by a Dedicated Decision Maker (DDM) based on a misinterpreted note about X being angry when C smacked him.
- •C was never informed of or questioned about the common assault allegation before it was recorded.
- •The crime report, including the common assault allegation, was set to be retained for at least 10 years, potentially affecting C's future.
- •C sought judicial review of the decisions to retain and reclassify the crime report.
Legal Principles
Principle of open justice
CPR r 39.2(4)
Fairness in decision-making requires context-dependent procedural fairness.
Archie v Law Society of Trinidad and Tobago [2018] UKPC 25
Right to be informed of allegations and to present a case in response.
O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) require considering credible evidence to the contrary when recording a crime.
HOCR paragraphs [2.2] and [3.2]
Lawful chastisement is a defense against assault charges, but it is not irrelevant to the initial recording of an offense.
H [2002] 1 Cr App R 7; A v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 611
Duty to make reasonable inquiries before making a decision (Tameside duty).
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
Article 8 ECHR: right to respect for private and family life.
Article 8 ECHR
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018): Principles of lawful and fair processing, accuracy, and data retention.
DPA 2018, Part 3
Outcomes
Ms O'Keefe's decision to reclassify the crime report as common assault was quashed.
The decision was procedurally unfair, based on a misapplication of the HOCR and the balance of probabilities test, and failed to meet the Tameside duty of reasonable inquiry.
Declaration that C's rights under Article 8 ECHR were violated.
The unlawful domestic decision led to a violation of Article 8.
Breach of multiple data protection principles under DPA 2018 found.
The unlawful recording of the common assault allegation violated principles of lawfulness, fairness, and accuracy.
Claim allowed.
The court quashed the decision to reclassify the crime report and declared a violation of C's Article 8 rights. A mandatory order was implied to amend the crime report to reflect the quashing.
Similar Cases
Veronica Strain, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
[2023] EWCA Civ 240
Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact)
[2023] EWCA Civ 346
Joseph Quirke, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary
[2024] EWHC 2826 (Admin)
Re T & Ors (Children) (Adequacy of Reasons)
[2023] EWCA Civ 757