Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

The following is a report of a presentation given by Ian Readhead, Deputy Chief Constable, Hampshire Constabulary, at the inaugural Information Sharing Network Conference, 10 September 2001.

<< Back to conference contents

Mr Readhead said that effective policing required members of the police service to communicate and exchange information with a diverse range of people. People and information were the core business of the police service, which was not solely responsible for safe areas, other agencies needed to be involved.

When police responded to a domestic violence call and discovered undernourished children, animal excrement on the floor and a woman assaulted, the question was who had to be informed about the situation. The exchange of information was not a new idea but there needed to be an efficient framework in place. This ensured that the appropriate agencies were informed, the public was reassured and the impact on communities was that they were safer places to live.

Good information exchange depended on common law duties of confidentiality. All concerned should have confidence that the information was timely and accurate. How was witness information handled when transferred to other agencies? The Human Rights Act, Article 8, had to be considered and the rights of an individual respected. The Data Protection Act 1998 had to be observed when personal information was involved. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 meant that agencies had to reconcile why information was being shared and what was to be achieved.

The Association of Chief Police Officers’ protocol provided guidance to forces on compiling a document to apply to any exchange of information which was intended to support action under any provision of the Crime and Disorder Act. The purpose of this protocol facilitated the exchange of data compliant with the statutory duty on chief police officers and local authorities to work together. The protocol had the sub-purpose to clearly define the aim of the specific partnership and state which aspect of the Crime and Disorder Act was intended to apply.

Information exchange had to be depersonalised and not identify the individual concerned. Where this achieved its purpose it was the recommended method (eg crime audits and research). A postcode might identify an individual and the exchange needed to be carefully considered. If the information did not need to be specific then it should be depersonalised.

Personal data should only be disclosed where consent had been obtained. It was still possible to disclose personal information without consent where it was necessary under the Crime and Disorder Act, there was an overriding public interest or provided the data was being processed fairly and lawfully.

Where consent was obtained, many of the data protection issues were avoided. Where consent had not been obtained, details of victims, witnesses or complainants should not be disclosed. Police officers attended crimes and obtained information that Victim Support wanted. The victim needed to give consent before the information could be passed to Victim Support. If an individual refused to give consent, the officer recorded that the information should not be exchanged. Police officers needed to create an audit trail for information gathered.

Arguments for disclosure of personal information in specific scenarios could appear compelling for the safety of others “in the public interest”, but account had to be taken of the longer term consequences if a precedent was established.

It was also “in the public interest” to maintain the high standard of confidentiality so that people still had the confidence to come forward with their complaints or information.

The News of the World recently published the names of paedophiles, three of whom lived in Hampshire. It stated that the information was released “in the public interest”, but it had created considerable repercussions for the police service in Hampshire. Two of the three people named had moved to London and their whereabouts were unknown. Innocent people had been victimised, which proved that it was not in the public interest to have disclosed the names; it was important to get the balance right.

The extent of personal data disclosed had also to be considered. It should be relevant, record the identity of the originator and only be the minimum amount of information required for the purpose. The data exchanged might have continued for several years, new staff involved and the original agreement might have been watered down.

Personal information about a driving conviction provided to a housing department which was trying to evict someone for drug offences, was not an exchange of relevant information.

A procedure needed to be agreed and followed that recorded the reason for the transfer, where requests for secondary disclosure were made. Information disclosed should be compatible with the purpose and the consent of the originator should be obtained.

Personal information was reviewed and culled to ensure that it was retained for the minimum period required and then destroyed. The process should take account of the existing policies and codes of practice of the relevant authorities.

Personal information found to be inaccurate should be amended and all other recipients notified. The quality of data on the Police National Computer was essential to the processes of the Criminal Records Bureau. If the information was not accurately recorded in the computer on time and kept up to date, they would not be able to operate efficiently.

A security policy had to be agreed regarding where the information would be stored, who had access and who made disclosure decisions. All organisations would have to evidence their security to provide compatibility when exchanging information and audit trails.

In the case of R v Chief Constable of North Wales and Others (1997), information disclosed about a married couple released from prison after sexual offences against children was challenged. The couple moved to a caravan site in North Wales and it was decided to inform the site owner for the protection of young people. The court agreed that this was the correct decision as policies were in place, proper grounds existed, the correct authority was used and the correct procedure was followed. The ground for disclosure took account of the following:

• required to prevent or detect crime;

• to protect the young or vulnerable;

• what risk was posed by this person(s)?

• how vulnerable were those at risk?

• what impact would the disclosure have on the offender(s)?

It was essential to make a safer place for the young children to live: the disclosure had no impact on the couple.

Essential elements were required for inter-agency sharing: each agency should have a confidentiality policy; staff should be trained; a protocol should be agreed and adherence monitored.

The conference was about promoting the exchange of information; legislation did not prevent the conducting of legitimate policing business, it also imposed a requirement on the police and partners to have good information handling practices.

<< Back to conference contents