Facts: in 2010, SD supervised a student trip, when he was a lecturer at the college. It was alleged that he had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in the presence of students aged 17–24 and other adults. The college investigated at the time and members of staff and students corroborated the allegations. The matter was not however taken any further by the college (largely because SD entered into a compromise whereby his employment was terminated with a positive reference), or by the police (no criminal offence had been committed), and SD was told that he would not be on the barred list for either children or adults. In 2013, SD applied for a job that required an enhanced criminal records check. It transpired that the Chief Constable had retained references to this incident in his ECRC and that the Disclosure and Barring Service proposed to disclose its copy of the ECRC to SD’s prospective employer. SD sought a judicial review.

Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Behrens held that, although SD denied it, it was more likely than not that the events on the ECRC had occurred, that the remarks made had been seriously inappropriate, that SD had had the opportunity of making representations and that the disclosure was accurate, balanced and fair so that, overall, applying a high intensity review, the disclosure was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting children or vulnerable people with whom SD might work in future.

Comment: this case is summarised as an example of the straight-forward application of the principles.