Home > yourrights > privacy/spent convictions and the rehabilitation of offenders > spent convictions and the rehabilitation of offenders/Retention and disclosure of information about your convictions and other involvement with the police > Retention and disclosure of information about your convictions and other involvement with the police
> Retention of your criminal records and other information
Retention of your criminal records and other information
In practice, official records about your previous encounters with the police and criminal courts will be held in a variety of places. The key records are those held by the police forces themselves. At the national level, there is a Police National Computer (PNC). Additionally, on a regional level, each different police force may keep its own records of its dealings with individuals. This information will not be limited to details of convictions. Information held regionally may differ from information held nationally, and the technology is not yet in place for the various systems to be merged. Because of this, individual police forces may wish to share information about particular people’s records with each other outside the PNC.
The PNC is managed in accordance with the principles set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in its Retention Guidelines of Nominal Records on the Police National Computer (March 2006). These Guidelines indicate that information about your convictions, whether spent or unspent, as well as information about any cautions, warnings and reprimands you may have been given, as well as other non-conviction information about your involvement with the police, such as an acquittal at trial or even an arrest that does not result in any charges being brought, will be kept on the PNC until you are deemed to be 100 years old. Although the Guidance suggests that it should be stepped down, the information will still be available and disclosable, and will in effect never be deleted. There is provision for the Chief Officer of the police force to authorise the deletion of information, but only in exceptional circumstances.
This type of information about you is considered to be your personal data, so anyone who wants to retain or otherwise process this information has to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. There is concern that the way in which the police process this information does not comply with the DPA, and in a recent case the Information Tribunal found that the police had breached the DPA by retaining the records of a number of individuals who had committed quite minor offences, many years ago, when the individuals were very young, and where the individuals had not reoffended or being in any further trouble with the police. The police are appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal (at the time of writing) but if the decision is upheld, it is likely that the Guidelines will need to be revised. If you are concerned that the police are retaining very old conviction information, or other information that is no longer relevant, you may want to ask for the information to be destroyed. If the police refuse, you may want to contact the Information Commissioner for advice on whether your DPA rights are being breached (www.ico.gov.uk).
The retention of this type of information is also likely to engage your right to privacy, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so the police should only retain it if they can justify this as necessary and proportionate to achieve one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 8(2), such as the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights of others (see article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence). There is particular concern that non conviction information is being stored indefinitely and being made available for disclosure, in the same way as information about convictions.
In the important case of S and Marper v the United Kingdom [2008], the European Court of Human Rights found the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles of persons who have been acquitted of criminal offences, was a disproportionate interference with their right to privacy. The Court noted in particular the fact that the police may retain the irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender, and that the information is retained indefinitely whatever the nature or seriousness of the suspected offence, with only very limited possibility to have the information removed. The Court also noted that treating persons who had been acquitted or even who have never been charged with any offence in the same way as convicted persons undermined the presumption of innocence, because of the stigma of having this type of information stored in the database.
The PNC is managed in accordance with the principles set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in its Retention Guidelines of Nominal Records on the Police National Computer (March 2006). These Guidelines indicate that information about your convictions, whether spent or unspent, as well as information about any cautions, warnings and reprimands you may have been given, as well as other non-conviction information about your involvement with the police, such as an acquittal at trial or even an arrest that does not result in any charges being brought, will be kept on the PNC until you are deemed to be 100 years old. Although the Guidance suggests that it should be stepped down, the information will still be available and disclosable, and will in effect never be deleted. There is provision for the Chief Officer of the police force to authorise the deletion of information, but only in exceptional circumstances.
This type of information about you is considered to be your personal data, so anyone who wants to retain or otherwise process this information has to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. There is concern that the way in which the police process this information does not comply with the DPA, and in a recent case the Information Tribunal found that the police had breached the DPA by retaining the records of a number of individuals who had committed quite minor offences, many years ago, when the individuals were very young, and where the individuals had not reoffended or being in any further trouble with the police. The police are appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal (at the time of writing) but if the decision is upheld, it is likely that the Guidelines will need to be revised. If you are concerned that the police are retaining very old conviction information, or other information that is no longer relevant, you may want to ask for the information to be destroyed. If the police refuse, you may want to contact the Information Commissioner for advice on whether your DPA rights are being breached (www.ico.gov.uk).
The retention of this type of information is also likely to engage your right to privacy, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so the police should only retain it if they can justify this as necessary and proportionate to achieve one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 8(2), such as the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights of others (see article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence). There is particular concern that non conviction information is being stored indefinitely and being made available for disclosure, in the same way as information about convictions.
In the important case of S and Marper v the United Kingdom [2008], the European Court of Human Rights found the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles of persons who have been acquitted of criminal offences, was a disproportionate interference with their right to privacy. The Court noted in particular the fact that the police may retain the irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender, and that the information is retained indefinitely whatever the nature or seriousness of the suspected offence, with only very limited possibility to have the information removed. The Court also noted that treating persons who had been acquitted or even who have never been charged with any offence in the same way as convicted persons undermined the presumption of innocence, because of the stigma of having this type of information stored in the database.
