ht obtain could include, for example, information from the police using their common law powers to prevent crime. This is information that a chief police officer does not wish to disclose to the person it is about. Such information, when disclosed to the agency, should be considered but not shared with the prospective adopter or the panel. With joint applications there may be circumstances where one prospective adopter shares information with the agency which they do not want disclosed to their partner, this information should be shared with the panel but not with the other potential adopter. 3.60. The panel may request additional information and the agency should obtain it so far as reasonably practicable. Again, unless there is good reason to justify not doing so, additional information obtained in this way should be shared with the prospective adopter. In the case of R v London Borough of Newham (on the application of A, T and S) [2008] EWHC 2640 (Admin) the Court of Appeal was critical of the procedural unfairness of the agency’s providing additional social work reports to the panel which were not shared with the prospective adopters. Brief prospective adopter’s report 3.61. AAR 30(4) provides for cases where the agency’s assessment of the prospective adopter, while still incomplete, reveals information that leads the agency to 73 consider that the prospective adopter may not be suitable to adopt. Under AAR 30(4) the agency may prepare a brief prospective adopter’s report (brief report) even though it may not have obtained all the information required by AAR 30. 3.62. In brief report cases, it is likely that the information that suggests to the assessing social worker that the prospective adopter may not be suitable will be discussed during the course of supervision