CATT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 43514/15 (Judgment : Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : First Section)

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

. In August 2010 the applicant asked the Association of Chief Police Officers ("ACPO") to delete entries from nominal records and information reports which mentioned him. In September 2010 ACPO declined to do so. They did not give reasons.

"... the records are held to help UK policing manage a future risk of crime - of which [you] could be the victim. The records themselves should not and will not be disclosed [to you] for what are obvious reasons. An intelligence database loses all efficacy if it is not kept confidential."

. In answer to a question asked by the Court when communicating the case the Government indicated that they had discovered four additional records mentioning the applicant in the database. They clarified that as a result, at the time the case was determined by the domestic courts there had in fact been six rather than two records in the database mentioning the applicant.

. The Government stated that the police could not provide any explanation of why the reports were not disclosed previously. However, they were investigating the matter. They indicated that they had informed the Supreme Court and the applicant of the additional reports.