Webtrends Tracking Code
 
UK Home >  OUT-LAW News >  News Archive >  2005 >  October 2005 >  Retention of conviction data does not breach Data Protection Act

Retention of conviction data does not breach Data Protection Act

OUT-LAW News, 17/10/2005

The Information Tribunal in London ruled last week that police forces do not break the Data Protection Act by processing conviction data on the Police National Computer which relates to offences more than 20 years old. However, the Tribunal determined that access to such data must be restricted.

Advert: Phishing conference, London, 27th October 2005The Tribunal was issuing a judgment on three appeals brought by the Chief Constables of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Wales, in effect representing all the police authorities in England and Wales. It ruled that in the three cases before it, the data in question should within six months of its judgment be restricted to police users only.

The appeals concern offences which, though of some age, involved in each case either a sentence of imprisonment or a serious offence, e.g. one involving violence and which under the present so-called Weeding Rules remain on the Police National Computer for 100 years or the death of the data subject, whichever occurs earlier. The present Weeding Rules are the result of agreed arrangements reached in 1995 under the previous Data Protection Act 1984 between the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, and the Information Commissioner. 

The Tribunal’s ruling in practical terms represents the implementation of certain proposals put forward by ACPO to the Commissioner during negotiations conducted in the period leading up to the appeals and which failed to result in a new code of conduct regarding the deletion of criminal convictions.

The negotiations had in turn been triggered by certain recommendations which are now in the process of being implemented and which were made by the Bichard Inquiry set up in the wake of the Soham murders. With this fluid situation in mind, the Tribunal stated that its decision was not binding on future cases.

It wrote: "The Tribunal feels that the evidence presented by both parties to these appeals at the same time was both sparse and over generalised. This is a predominant reason why the Tribunal stresses that the three instant appeals do not necessarily form the basis or any useful basis for future cases which might on the surface appear the same".

In the course of a lengthy and detailed judgment the Tribunal also made certain specific recommendations in an effort to prompt workable improvements to the operation of the PNC and to complement the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry.  It remains to be seen whether these are implemented.

See: The judgement (95-page / 296KB PDF)

 

OUT-LAW Recommends

Free OUT-LAW seminars
- Making your contract work
- Information security
Six cities, October & November

This week's podcast
Are ISPs about to betray our trust?

Winner at 2008 Webby Awards

OUT-LAW star: link to the home page
Disclaimer: This was printed from OUT-LAW.COM, a service of international law firm Pinsent Masons. We hope you find this content useful. However, please note that nothing in this document constitutes specific legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. Any questions, please email info@out-law.com.