This was the Telegraph's main story yesterday.
All of the evidence submitted in advance to the Bichard Inquiry is on the
inquiry website - www.bichardinquiry.org.uk - including the ACPO and
Information Commissioner submissions. I think this story is worth the
bother, though. ACPO need to make a muscular response to defend David
Westwood, the Chief Constable of Humberside. I was also impressed the
Commissioner's robust statements following the Soham trial. Nevertheless,
there is anecdotal evidence that the police are pressured by the IC to
delete data. Ask a force DP officer if you don't believe me, I have heard
several of them complaining that the Commissioner's views post-Soham are not
consistent with his practice. A police DP officer would be able to put the
case better than me (I certainly believe Humberside made genuine mistakes)
but I also think that there are two sides to every story.
Tim Turner
Data Protection Officer
Wigan Council
> ----------
> From: Tim Trent[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Tim Trent
> Sent: 25 February 2004 23:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [data-protection] Astonishing excuses for less than
> competent policing?
>
> The Daily Telegraph was hammering on about this today. The simple
> question
> is this: Why does ACPO not use common sense?"
>
> I have quoted the article coz I had to register to see it, and it;s truly
> not worth the bother. By the way, WHY is my Date of Birth and my Gender
> collected by the paper? It seems to be to be "Excessive" data!
>
> Article Begins
> The most senior police officers in the country condemned the Government's
> Information Commissioner yesterday, accusing him of undermining the safety
> of children by ordering the destruction of valuable criminal intelligence.
>
> The Association of Chief Police Officers said Richard Thomas had demanded
> that police forces delete convictions for violence and allegations of
> sexual
> assault from computer and intelligence files in the interests of data
> protection and civil liberties.
>
> Acpo said the commissioner's repeated interventions in record-keeping
> showed
> that he "clearly misunderstands" everyday police work. It had been
> "frankly
> absurd" for him to claim after the Soham murders trial that he never
> interfered with police record-keeping.
>
> "He wants fewer offence details recorded on the police national computer,
> not more," it said.
>
> "The Police Service has clearly indicated that this would inhibit the
> safety
> of vulnerable persons, children in particular, and the public in general."
>
> Acpo's fierce attack was made in written evidence to the Bichard inquiry
> into the failures in vetting that allowed Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer,
> to become a school caretaker despite a long history of suspected sexual
> offences.
>
> After Huntley's conviction for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica
> Chapman, Humberside constabulary said it had deleted intelligence
> information about him in
> <http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/19/nsoh
> 19
> .xml> an effort to comply with the Data Protection Act.
>
> Mr Thomas said in his inquiry submission, also published yesterday, that
> Humberside's decision to delete intelligence "of such obvious value for
> the
> prevention and detection of crime" was "astonishing".
>
> He said: "There was nothing in the Data Protection Act, in the Acpo code
> or
> in the guidance from my office from which Humberside police could
> reasonably
> conclude that they were required to delete intelligence information on Ian
> Huntley within a very short timescale.
>
> "It appears that Humberside's approach to the weeding of criminal
> intelligence records was out of step with the practice in most, if not
> all,
> other police forces."
>
> David Westwood, the Humberside chief constable, is to appear at the
> inquiry
> next week. He will be relieved that Acpo has sprung to his defence. In its
> submission, the association says that the commissioner intervenes in
> police
> work "to the detriment of the Police Service in general and vulnerable
> members of the community in particular".
>
> It cites examples where the data protection watchdog has taken enforcement
> action against police forces, demanding that they delete records from
> their
> database. All these have occurred since the Soham murders in August 2002.
>
> In one case, in July 2003, the commissioner demanded that South Yorkshire
> police delete from a woman's record a juvenile conviction for actual
> bodily
> harm dating from 1979. The commissioner's office said the woman could be
> "harmed or embarrassed by the disclosure of information relating to a
> minor
> offence many years ago".
>
> Acpo said it strongly disputed the commissioner's view and said a
> conviction
> for actual bodily harm "is not minor or irrelevant data . . . especially
> if
> the individual is seeking employment with vulnerable persons or children".
>
> In September 2003 a similar request was made of West Yorkshire police over
> a
> man who wanted juvenile convictions that carried a three-month custodial
> sentence to be "weeded out" of his record.
>
> In a case with echoes of Huntley, the commissioner asked an unnamed police
> force to delete intelligence relating to allegations that a man sexually
> assaulted young males in 1991 and 1998.
>
> The commissioner questioned the force's retention of the intelligence "if
> it
> were only being held for employment vetting purposes".
>
> Acpo retorted: "This statement clearly misunderstands the need to process
> such information for the purposes of operational policing and the
> subsequent
> requirement to prevent crime through the employment process."
>
> The police chiefs were "surprised" at Mr Thomas's claim after the Soham
> trial in December 2003 that his office did not give formal instructions or
> directions to any police force about retaining information.
>
> Their statement says: "All the evidence shows the Information Commissioner
> to be very active and influential in this area. Any suggestion to the
> contrary is, in our opinion, frankly absurd."
>
> The statement calls on Sir Michael Bichard, the chairman of the inquiry,
> to
> establish firm rules on record keeping and vetting.
>
> It says that criminal records should be retained for the lifetime of the
> individual and issues a call for the establishment of a national policy on
> holding "non-conviction data".
>
> The inquiry begins taking evidence tomorrow when James Eadie, the inquiry
> counsel, makes his opening statement.
>
> Article ends
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim Trent - Consultant
> Direct: +44(0)1344 392644 Mobile:+44(0)7710 126618
> email: [log in to unmask]
> <blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Marketing Improvement Limited, Abbey House, Grenville Place, Bracknell,
> United Kingdom, RG12 1BP <blocked::http://www.marketingimprovement.com/>
> http://www.marketingimprovement.com
>
>
>
> This message is for the intended addressee's use only. It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If
> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify
> the
> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is
> authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity.
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
> available to the world wide web community at large at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses using Sophos
anti-virus software.
www.mimesweeper.com
www.sophos.com
**********************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|