Thanks for this Madeleine,

 

It makes very interesting reading and is very timely given the Goddard Inquiry, I've included the relevant Goddard sections below, the full judgement can be found here and is worthy of a read.

 

"Investigations, inquiries and litigation

 

[48] The third purpose of maintaining records relates to matters which may become the subject of investigations or inquiries in which retained information may become important. This was a matter addressed in the Policy Report at §§4.3 and 4.11. There are several types of proceedings which might call for this type of evidence.

 

[49] First, there are public inquiries. The most important is the current Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, headed by Justice Lowell Goddard (‘the Goddard Inquiry’), whose wide-ranging task is to investigate the failures of various institutions to protect children from abuse over the past several decades.

 

[50] The Goddard Inquiry follows several other high-profile inquiries in recent years into the abuse or exploitation of children. These include one in Rotherham, whose remit was for the years 1997-2013, and Oxford, which investigated abuse as far back as 1999. A review by Peter Wanless and Richard Wittham QC into the extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of organised child abuse covered the years 1979-1999. One of the issues which has given rise to particular public concern is the existence and sufficiency of records; and, where records are no longer available, why this may be so.

 

[51] The Defendant argued that these inquiries are of fundamental public importance, and would be severely hampered if records were deleted in accordance with the Claimant’s or Information Commissioner’s proposed policy. This was a matter taken into account by Horner J in the JR60 case at [20] where, accepting this element of public interest, he referred to an Inquiry into Historical Institutionalised Child Abuse in Northern Ireland for the period from 1922 to the present day.

 

[52] The second type of enquiries are police investigations. Revelations about historic child abuse and exploitation give rise to criminal investigations, most infamously in the case of Operation Yewtree, led by the Metropolitan Police. This operation investigated allegations that well-known media personalities and others had engaged in criminal sexual activity, in some cases with underage and vulnerable people. Some of the crimes took place as long ago as 1967. Records of the neglect and abuse of children may be of significant interest to criminal investigators and prosecutors many years after the events themselves; and it is plainly in the public interest that critical evidence be preserved to enable justice to be done, whether this is by corroborating a victim’s allegation or exonerating someone who is wrongly accused.

 

[53] The third area of potential relevance is internal reviews. Local Authorities may have concerns about the provision of care and wish to review its procedures in order to make improvements. This is in keeping with their general duties to safeguard children’s welfare, as supplemented by the mandatory recommendations in Chapter 2 of the March 2015 Inter-agency Guide, referred to above. Old records may also be relevant to performance reviews or disciplinary proceedings relating to one or more employees, advancing not only the protection of children, but also public confidence in social services."

 

Best wishes

 

 

Stephen Brooks

Information Governance Officer

Information Governance Team

Lancashire County Council

 

 

 

 

Dear all

This is certainly worth reading for justifiable long-term retention of child protection records.

 

A judgment from yesterday (23^rd July 2015).

 

 

*R (on the application of C) v Northumberland County Council

 

Child – Protection. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether it was lawful for the defendant local authority to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case had been closed. The court held that the policy was in accordance with the law, had been carefully considered, adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and was applied proportionately and flexibly.

 

Catchwords

Child – Protection – Child protection records – Claimant issuing judicial review proceedings challenging defendant local authority's policy of retaining child protection records for 35 years after case being closed – Whether policy being lawful.

 

 

The judgment is available at: [2015] EWHC 2134 (Admin)

 

The defendant local authority's policy, 'Child protection: investigations under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, child protection conference minutes, child protection plans and associated case recording', was to retain child protection records for 35 years after a case was closed, unless a child was or became looked after (in which case the retention policy was 75 years) or adopted (in which case the retention period was 100 years from the date of the adoption order). The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking the destruction of child protection information held by the authority, an order quashing the authority's policy and/or a declaration that it was unlawful. The authority agreed to destroy all the data relating to the claimant's case and the particular facts of his case were no longer relevant to the broader issue of principle that arose.

 

The issue before the court was whether it was lawful for the authority to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case had been closed. The claimant and the Information Commissioner, as interested party, contended that a retention period of longer than six years, being the limitation period for bringing tort claims against the authority, could not be justified.

 

The application would be dismissed.

 

The authority's policy of 35 years was in accordance with the law, had been carefully considered, adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and was applied proportionately and flexibly. The purposes for processing and retaining the personal data extended beyond the authority's ability to defend claims brought against it. It was clear that the authority's policy was designed for the purpose of: (i) protecting other children; (ii) allowing those whose data was retained access to the information in later life; and (iii) making it available, if required, in the case of later investigation, enquiries or litigation. Accordingly, there was a need to keep the records for a substantial period and, certainly, substantially longer than the period argued for by the claimant and the Information Commissioner. It might be argued that the period of 35 years was not the only possible period of retention, but it fell within the bracket of legitimate periods of retention (see [33], [61], [62] of the judgment).

 

S and Marper v United Kingdom (Applications 30562/04 and 30566/04) [2008] All ER (D) 56 (Dec) considered; Re JR60 [2013] NIQB 93 considered; R (on the application of Catt) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; R (on the application of T) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2015] 2 All ER 727 considered.

 

Regards

Madi

 

Madi McAllister

Information Governance & Records Management Officer

London Borough of Merton

Tel: x 4180

Please help to reduce waste and do not print this message unless you really need to.
This message, including any attached files, is intended just for the use of the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. Any opinions expressed are those of the sender, not Merton Council. Email is not secure, and the council accepts no responsibility for any inaccuracy, corruption or virus which has occurred during transmission.
This email may be subject to monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation and may be disclosed in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The message may contain information that is confidential or sensitive; you should handle it accordingly.
If you have received this email message in error, you must not copy, disclose or make any further use of the information contained within it. Please notify the system manager ([log in to unmask]) or the Head of Information Governance ([log in to unmask]), and delete the message.

[log in to unmask]
http://www.merton.gov.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------

To view the list archives go to: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the words UNSUBSCRIBE RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]