The Applicant and The Regulator

The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision by The Regulator concerning the disclosure of spent convictions. The core of the dispute revolved around whether The Regulator could rely on or refer to facts that underpinned convictions which had since become spent under the relevant legislation. The matter came before Deputy President McCabe.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the disclosure of facts underlying spent convictions was permissible, and if so, under what circumstances. Further, the Court had to consider whether The Regulator could rely on grounds for its decision that had not been previously articulated, and the appropriate approach to documents that contained or would lead to the disclosure of spent convictions, including whether they should be removed or redacted.

Deputy President McCabe reasoned that the legislative framework governing spent convictions aimed to prevent the perpetual disadvantage arising from past offences once they had reached the prescribed rehabilitation period. His Honour held that while the conviction itself was spent, the underlying facts could, in certain circumstances, be referred to, provided that such reference did not effectively disclose the spent conviction. The Court also affirmed that The Regulator could rely on grounds not previously raised if fairness permitted, and that the redaction or removal of documents was an appropriate measure to prevent the disclosure of spent convictions.

The Court made orders for the removal or redaction of documents as specified in Schedule One to its orders.