Publish And Be Damned? Clift v Slough Borough Council

When is a local authority justified in publishing the name of an individual as a new addition to its Potentially Violent Persons Register? Can a public authority ever do that, or will it always be in breach of that person's human rights?

Local authorities must understand and take into account the important Court of Appeal case of Clift v Slough Borough Council.

But first a word of warning: while it is vital that local authorities understand this case and adjust their policies accordingly, we are seeking leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court so you will need to keep abreast of developments in this case. We shall update you in due course.

The facts

Mrs Clift had an altercation with a member of the public in a council garden after a little boy had trampled on some flowers. Mrs Clift had a telephone conversation the next day with the Council's Anti Social Behaviour Coordinator. The conversation went horribly wrong. It led to further complaint by Mrs Clift during which she made remarks which were taken as threatening Council staff. These included:

a remark over the telephone that she wished that the co-ordinator would drop dead; a statement in a letter that if she had met the co-ordinator then she would have physically attacked her; and repeating during a meeting that she would have hit the co-ordinator if she could have. So, this event, which started with a little boy trampling on some flowers, ended up with Mrs Clift being put on the Council's Potentially Violent Persons Register.

In accordance with normal procedure a Council officer sent an email about this latest addition to the Register to 66 Council officers across the following departments:

Trading Standards; Neighbourhood Enforcement and Community Safety; Licence; Food and Safety; and Children and Education Services. The officer also sent the email to a number of partner organisations outside the Council in the following areas:

refuse collection and road sweeping; building maintenance for Council-owned properties (the claimant – Mrs Clift – did not live in a Council-owned property); the PCT – with Social Service-related activities; and Community Safety Partnership including about 50 businesses. This took the total number of people emailed to about 150.

The key issue

Mrs Clift claimed that the Register and the email were defamatory of her. The Council pleaded justification but the jury at first instance found against it. The key remaining issue was whether the words complained of...