Criminal record retention orders opens up debate

gallery

Following the news yesterday that the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) had ordered four police forces to delete criminal records, comments from politicians and the Commissioner himself, Richard Thomas have fuelled the debate.

Thomas restated the ICO's position: "I am sending a very clear signal to the police that conviction data that is excessive and no longer required for policing purposes should be deleted."

He said onus was now on all police forces to consider whether they are holding on to old conviction data that is no longer required for policing purposes, adding "we are publishing details about four cases and I am sure that there must be many more like this".

The ICO order centres on four people's requests to have minor, non-custodial crimes like petty theft and minor assault committed as long as 30 years ago deleted, another was aged 14 at the time.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) told IT PRO yesterday the records had been retained under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to carry out background checks on people applying to work with children.

But Thomas replied: "Following investigations by my Office we have ordered four police forces [Humberside, Northumbria, Staffordshire and West Midlands Police] to delete old conviction data. The police are appealing - as is their legal right to do so - and it will ultimately be for the Information Tribunal to rule on these cases [in the New Year]."

Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman and contender for party leader, Nick Clegg welcomed the "common sense" of the decision. "As the Government rushes towards the creation of a surveillance state, it is hugely important that the Information Commissioner should protect peoples' rights and privacy."

But Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis had his criticisms firmly set on current data retention policies within UK police forces. "This ruling exposes the lack of proper guidance for police on when and how they retain crime data," he said.

"If serious crimes have been committed, it is appropriate for information to be retained by the police. But in more trivial circumstances a greater degree of proportionality is required.

"We already know thousands of innocent people currently have profiles on the national DNA database," added Davis. "The Government must commit to a proper review of data retention rules and allow Parliament to fully debate this issue. Only then will the police have the necessary clarity on what information they can retain and for how long."

Email to a friend

Print this page