Police may be forced to delete records

#1
not found this elsewhere.

from the times
Tens of thousands of criminal records could be deleted after a landmark ruling that police were breaking rules on the holding of personal details.

Police reacted with dismay to a judgment by the Information Tribunal, which could force them to review millions of records of minor crimes.

The ruling opens the way for all those who have been convicted of a minor offence when young, and who have since remained out of trouble, to apply for their record to be removed from the Police National Computer.

Police privately cautioned last night that there were potentially much wider implications. “A crime may look very trivial, but it might still be of significance to a person’s potential behaviour,” a police source said.
and

In a second blow to the storage of crime records, the Ethics Group, a government-appointed advisory body, gave warning that keeping DNA samples of people arrested but never charged or convicted is a potential breach of human rights laws.
now is this a good thing? Isn't it about time that those not charged with an offence or convicted be taken off the system, or will it be a blow to law enforcement? Will be we cursing the human rights laws in a few years time when someone slips through who could have been caught using stored DNA?
 
#3
There used to be a little thing in this country about being presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Despite atempts to destroy that ethos over recent years it should still be a fundemental right.
My DNA is on file and I seriously object to it being so.
My crime? traffic offences, does that really mean I'm a muurder or rapist in waiting? No, I think not.
Its quite right that these records should be reviewed and not kept just in case somebody like myself suddenly decides to become a mass murderer who could be tracked down via my DNA.
 
#4
theoriginalphantom said:
i
now is this a good thing? Isn't it about time that those not charged with an offence or convicted be taken off the system, or will it be a blow to law enforcement? Will be we cursing the human rights laws in a few years time when someone slips through who could have been caught using stored DNA?
It's not so much the database itself that's the problem, TOPs, but the arrseholes who have access to, including the present and future slimy gobment arrseholes, and who WILL misuse and abuse it.

It's the thin-end-of-the-wedge, slippery-slope aspect again. The proof that such things and also laws are thoroughly abused and misused by all manner of scumbags is blatantly evident. This database will be no exception.

I reckon it's a good thing that somebody's finally woken up and taken steps to dampen down all this unnecessary surveillance. Yes, I agree that here and there some nonce might walk, but that's the nature of the beast. Due to the misuse and abuse that WILL happen, the alternative that at some point in the future every citizen will have to give a DNA sample by law just doesn't bear thinking about.

MsG
 
#5
That seems like excellent news. Many people do silly things as kids, and it is a crying shame when such things come back and bite them on their arrses in later years when they have become solid, honest citizens.

Obviously there must be some exceptions, but this piecemeal system of some forces keeping some things for 100 years and others weeding records routinely is a joke. Time for national standards, this whole CRB issue is becoming ridiculous.

As for DNA taking, I have no real objection to it if we're all put on the database, not just those who are merely arrested and never charged for any offence.

I line with what Bugsy says, I think it's far better a handful of guilty suspects are left to roam free (until they are eventually caught red handed) than for an entire population to be treated as suspects and their lives ruined by a police state.
 
#6
I think that if it was:-

A) A Minor Offence (eg possession of class C drug, D&D, theft <£50, Damage <£100 or similar).
B) They received a caution for it.
C) They have not reoffended since.
D) They're under the age 17 (after that you really should know better)

Then, after 3 years the record should be deleted. Though the police should still be able to keep the DNA and descriptive details of the person that are collected during the prosecution process.

We've all done something a bit dull when we were younger, me included, there's no point in continuing to make life hard for someone who's done something a bit silly.

Edited for mlaaar spelling
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#7
Why keep the DNA? Surely without the details names adresses etc its worthless?
 
#8
ugly said:
Why keep the DNA? Surely without the details names adresses etc its worthless?
I did say "along with the descriptive details" This includes, name address, date of birth, and description. This is kept on the PNC but is not a criminal record.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#9
So in addition to the pnc having all sgc and fac holders details it will still apparently hold illegally all the dna and personal details of persons not charged and those juveniles where reoffending hasnt occurred for more than 3 years?
Great now I know why I love this country!
 

old_fat_and_hairy

LE
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#10
I was all for this, when I thought it meant the wholesale destruction of records, such as those by Ken dodd, Black Lace and anyone who uses the names that include a hyphen and a letter; ie, Jay-Z .


However, since it means something else, then yes. It's not a bad thing.

Our ruling elite have become obsessed to the point of madness with recording and collating details of all of us. Simply put, they would be best pleased were a chip implanted in each and every one of us recording every movement, deed and thought that we make.

The collection of dna and it's entry on a national database may seem like a good idea in the fight against crime or the war on terror, and it certainly has produced some startling rsults. But, just pause for a moment. Do we have a government that we trust? Do we have trust and faith in our police (and I do rule out the foot soldiers here)?
Is it totally beyond the bounds of possibility that if there were to be someone whom the government wanted silenced, or discredited, could not the database be manipulated? Could "evidence" be found to fit the facts?

Yes, I know it sounds far fetched, and like the plot of a bad novel. It will be said that it could not happen, there are too many safeguards. But who controls those safeguards?
Of course it could not happen. Just as a leading scientist, a critic of the government and a whistleblower who was found dead in strange circumstances, could not possibly have been muredered, nor his death covered up. No, Dr David Kelly's death was straightforward, just as no government department would ever misuse the dna databse or any other records.
 
#11
The_Seagull said:
ugly said:
Why keep the DNA? Surely without the details names adresses etc its worthless?
I did say "along with the descriptive details" This includes, name address, date of birth, and description. This is kept on the PNC but is not a criminal record.
So, they are no longer criminals but you would still like to see data on them kept? That IMO is wrong, why should you have access to data such as that, just "incase" someone re-offends?

Goes against the basic principles of human freedoms if you ask me
 
#12
It doesn't matter what the law says. the government will simply send all the details abroad for foreign governments to keep, if they have to delete the info here. Your ID, DNa, iris scan etc does not belong to you, they belong to the state and they can do anything they want with them. (so labour believe anyway.)
 
#13
It would be a good thing if people whose DNA was taken when arrested but not charged was removed. These days it is very easy for a victim of crime to end up being arrested. Anyone who has been found guilty of a recordable crime should have it retained.

Jagman. If they have your DNA for a 'traffic offence' it can't have been for something minor and not recordable. Driving over the alcohol/drugs limit, disqualified driving, unauthorised taking of a conveyance, deat b dangerous driving, to some people these are 'traffic offences.
 
#14
Keeping such details makes a mockery of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Where the conviction is spent, so should the records be removed.
 
#15
Mikal said:
Keeping such details makes a mockery of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Where the conviction is spent, so should the records be removed.
that applies only if we are a nation of citizens. We are a nation of suspects, nothing more.

cynical, moi?
 
#16
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows that some convictions are spent and do not have to be declared for certain positions of empolyment. Some convictions are never spent and some job applications require all convictions to be shown. Therefore, a record is still required.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
So will the Police act within the law or as they please?
 
#18
rockpile said:
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows that some convictions are spent and do not have to be declared for certain positions of empolyment. Some convictions are never spent and some job applications require all convictions to be shown. Therefore, a record is still required.
Whilst that is perfectly correct, it appears that many convictions were being retained on the PNC long after they became eligible for removal under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I believe it is that which has been challenged.

The vetting process requires that all convictions are declared, whether or not they are considered "spent", not just those that are still on the PNC. Some people I have known have tried to lie in the past, which is a bit futile as if they hadn't, they would probably still be employed.

I have no knowledge of the inside workings of the CRB (even if I had, I wouldn't discuss them anyway) but I suspect that they have access to far more information than is normally available on the PNC system
 
#19
My understanding of the system is that the PNC retains all information on convictions. Spent ones are marked as such. All final warnings and cautions are kept there. CRB in Liverpool is an agency charged with administering applications for information. Most of its information comes from the police and for an enhanced application police in the applicant's area of residence are still contacted.
 
#20
pyrogenica said:
That seems like excellent news. Many people do silly things as kids, and it is a crying shame when such things come back and bite them on their arrses in later years when they have become solid, honest citizens.

Obviously there must be some exceptions, but this piecemeal system of some forces keeping some things for 100 years and others weeding records routinely is a joke. Time for national standards, this whole CRB issue is becoming ridiculous.

As for DNA taking, I have no real objection to it if we're all put on the database, not just those who are merely arrested and never charged for any offence.

I line with what Bugsy says, I think it's far better a handful of guilty suspects are left to roam free (until they are eventually caught red handed) than for an entire population to be treated as suspects and their lives ruined by a police state.


Congratulations: that has to be one of the most Bone comments I've ever read on ARRSE. :roll:
 

Latest Threads

Top