Disclosure of information on PNC should be filtered

Only “soft data” should be disclosed as part of criminal record bureau (CRB) checks and all non-police users of the Police National Computer (PNC), including members of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), should be subjected to an external audit before being granted access, a report has stated.

A Balanced Approach: Safeguarding the public through fair and proportionate use of accurate criminal record information, written by Independent Adviser to Criminality Information Management, Sunita Mason, was published last week. It reviews the retention of details on the PNC and disclosure arrangements governing how information is obtained and used by third parties.

The key recommendation is that a filter “using specified business rules” be placed over what information prospective employers receive when conducting CRB checks. Anything minor or very old should not be passed on, Ms Mason says, as this could be of detriment to the rehabilitation of offenders. She recommends that an expert panel advises the Government on what filtering rules should be implemented and any legislative arrangements this requires.

If this filtering process is adopted, Ms Mason said relevant guidance should be given to employers to make them aware of the changes.

“Suitable controls” should be put in place to support public protection arrangements regarding the PNC and Police National Database (PND) and the retention and disclosure of information, Ms Mason said. She proposes that any non-police users of the system, such as employees of HMIC, should be subjected to an external audit, the cost of which should be met by the organisation requiring it.

There is no recommendation to demand criminal records be deleted from the PNC, other than when the individual reaches the age of 100. Adequate provisions should be put in place to ensure at this stage the information is deleted.

Once the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) is more established, Ms Mason proposes that integration begins between it and the PNC with regard to employment vetting, in order to cut costs and bureaucracy.

The review was commissioned primarily as a result of the ‘Five Constables Case’ which arose from action taken by the Information Commissioner against five police forces in relation to information they held on individuals and he believed should have been deleted because they were “old and minor”.

Culminating in a Court of Appeal hearing in July 2009, judges were unanimous that police should determine what information is kept and that in these cases deletion was not required. Handing down the judgement in October last year, they agreed that the forces had not contravened data protection principles.

The concern that arose related to the disclosure of the information as the Information Commissioner was concerned that the details were being shared for reasons beyond those they were collected for.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson welcomed the report, saying he “accepted the principles behind all her recommendations, although in some cases we will need to think further about how they should be delivered”.

He added: “In looking at retention, Ms Mason had regard to the recent Court of Appeal judgement in the ‘Five Constables Case’ and in light of the findings has recommended that the current retention arrangements should continue. We agree with that view.

“Ms Mason also recommends wider reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The Government agrees that the Act needs to be looked at afresh to see what might best be considered in today’s context, and that work should include public consultation, before moving to introduce any reforming legislation.

“I am anxious to ensure that the disclosure process is proportionate and I will be asking officials to look at this further.”

• Code of practice for PND – see p22