DATA PROTECTION

The Data Protection Act has been a topical subject in recent press after the death of the two young girls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells who were murdered by their school caretaker Ian Huntley. It has become apparent that the misinterpretation of the Data Protection Act by the Humberside Police force has led to such a tragedy. After great investigation during the Soham trial, the eight principles of the Data Protection Act were bought to the attention of the government and there had been an urgent call for analysis and review of the existing act for both in the interest of police intelligence forces and the safety of the general public.

The Data Protection Act is an act that protects individual’s data from being exposed freely and from being misused. The acts main objective is to protect individuals’ civil rights and to ensure that the information held about them can be rectified or updated. There are eight main underlying principles that compose the Data Protection Act.

 “Information which is referred to as ‘personal data’ should be processed fairly and lawfully” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law). This is one aspect, which the Humberside police force had difficulty in understanding since ‘it is up to individual police forces to decide what information should be retained.’ At the same instance as choosing what information is being kept of criminals there should also be a valid reason for it, as it is in the interest of the police to protect criminals as well as keep their records. This is clearly referred to in the sixth principle that “Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this act” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law).

 This is perhaps one reason why “vital information on suspects was routinely thrown away because senior officers misinterpreted the Data Protection Act.” ( Q&A Data protection Act an the Police 18/12/2003). The police force was abiding by what was written in the act and the reason why the information was eliminated because of the fact that the records were not obtained for employment vetting purposes that they were lawfully erased which coincides with the second principle.

The second principle states, “personal data shall be obtained for only one or more specified and lawful purposes and shall not be processed further in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law). This clearly states that there is no need for data collection for unnecessary purposes and that if data has been collected then it should only be used for the purpose in which it was originally obtained. “Information of past alleged crimes could not be held for the purposes of employment vetting.” This is where the police intelligence lacked as it is essential for police checks to be carried out on those who are involved in teaching and in childcare in order to give the school and parents a sense of security and assurance that their children are in safe hands. However, having kept Huntley’s records would have defeated the second data protection point, as the information would have been processed further.  

Join now!

However, if previous information was connected to Huntley’s sex and theft allegations and he was a ‘serial sex attacker’ ( Huntley sex attack report deleted 26/02/2004) then the information obtained about him should have been kept on the system and when the police staff had to ‘weed’ details and discard all statements related to Huntley, they should have retained them as a valuable source of information in order for a clear character reference which would be have been significantly useful when he applied for the a job in the college. It seems plausible and remains a lawful reason as to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay