Contractual security vetting by the police: public or private law?

3 August 2012 by

A, R (o.t.a A) v. Chief Constable of B Constabulary [2012] EWCA 2141 (Admin), Kenneth Parker J, 26 July 2012, read judgment

The public/private divide still gets lawyers excited, even in an Olympic summer, and for good reason – my image is simply to cool the fevered brow of those fresh from the stadium or the beach. Now for the problem met head on in this case. Generally speaking, parties to a contract may treat the others how they please, as long as that treatment does not offend the terms of the contract or specific consumer protection rules. But, equally generally, a public body is obliged to treat others in accordance with public law rules of fairness, and can challenge unfairness by judicial review. And this case is a good example of the intersection between these principles.

A had run a breakdown recovery service for the police for some years. The police then interposed a main contractor, FMG, who awarded the contract to A for the continuation of the job, now as a subcontractor. But the sub-contract, understandably enough, provided that its award was subject to vetting by the police. And the police then refused to give A clearance. Why? The police would not say, even when A threatened proceedings. And they said that they did not have to. Their line in court was that it was all governed by the contract, and the courts had no business in poking its nose into their reasoning – in the jargon, it was non-justiciable. They relented to some extent in the course of the proceedings, by giving some information, but still said that they were not obliged to do so.

Kenneth Parker J applied a three stage test, in rejecting the central arguments of the police:

The first stage of the test was whether the Defendant was a public body exercising statutory powers. [Counsel for the police] submitted that although the Police Authority was a public body, it was not exercising statutory powers in deciding whether to grant security clearance to A. The context was a contractual one, the decision being no more than the exercise of the vetting requirement under ….the sub-contract between A and FMG.

The second stage was whether the function being performed was a public or private one. [Counsel] submitted that the security vetting of A was not the exercise of any public function. It was not performed for the greater good of the public at large but was an operational or management function for the efficient and effective operation of a contractual obligation.

The third stage was whether the Police Authority was performing a public duty owed to the Claimant. [Counsel] submitted that there was no such duty towards A.

As for the first question, the judge found that the police authority was exercising statutory functions in respect of the seizure and recovery of vehicles. More widely, in response to the second, the functions of police security vetting were not a private function, even if the contractual basis of it was derived from the sub-contract. After all, it was carried out in the public interest – making sure that suspect people do not enjoy access to police property and information. Finally, the public law duty was owed to A, rather than it being a purely internal police matter.

The judge also grappled with the underlying intellectual problem in these cases, finding a resolution in the earlier first instance decision by Elias J in Molinaro:

If the allegation is of abuse of power the courts should in general hear the complaint. Public law bodies should not be free to abuse their power by invoking the principle that private individuals can act unfairly or abusively without legal redress. But sometimes the application of public law principles will cut across the private law relationship and, in these circumstances, the court may hold that the public law complaint cannot be advanced because it would undermine the applicable private law principles.

But public law principles properly applied need not distort the normal processes of commercial negotiation between parties; a remedy will only be available where the public interest is engaged.

The judge therefore held that the police were wrong in saying they owed no public law duty of fairness to A.

But this was not the end of the story. The judge found it more difficult to outline the content of that duty. The police would be entitled to adopt an ultra-precautionary approach to an application for information, based upon police intelligence. Equally, they would not be bound to provide full details of the grounds relied on in not giving clearance, in advance, so as to enable A to comment or rebut them. But he thought that the police were obliged to give some explanation for the refusal, and in many cases the gist of the reasons. Once that was provided, it would not generally be for the Court to adjudicate the reasonableness or otherwise of the police’s decision; the Court should only intervene in exceptional circumstances.

The upshot was that the blanket refusal to give any information was quashed. The police had then to decide whether they ought to provide any further information over and above that provided during the course of the proceedings – that was for them, and A could not assume that more information would necessarily be forthcoming once the police had applied the terms of the judge’s judgment correctly.

An important case for any type of public procurement, where contract hits public law, and the decision sets out some guiding principles to assist in the resolution of these disputes which are far from easy to determine.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: