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 why his information may have been required for further investigation as it seem just as unethical as to process his details further as it was to give him the title of a school caretaker as he was obviously a dangerous human being not only to young children but to the nation. This information if processed further, would have created a more of police awareness towards him and would have indeed affected his rights in working with children as stated in the employment law.
Huntley was using two names he was using ‘Ian Huntley and Ian Nixon’ to cause confusion to the police national files. Therefore he clearly played clever and fooled the systems and during the checks that were carried out for his employment vetting intentions there was not a single trace of him having been associated with any criminal activities. His information of Ian Nixon was not accurate and it was not picked up on by the police as Huntley was obviously disobeying the Data Protection Act, as “personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are possessed.” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law) “A balance must be struck…. protect public from crime” ( Q&A Data protection Act an the Police 18/12/2003). If personal data of Ian Huntley was ‘adequate’ enough to cause injury and relevant to the safety of the society then the previous allegations should have been retained and precautions should have been taken towards him; although the originality of the information was not gathered for the purpose of vetting he was clearly a threat to the Humberside community.
There obviously had been severe confusion about the information that Huntley had presented to the police officers and there had been an element of police misinterpretation and wrong human judgement. This led to poor police intelligence and awareness and the failure of storing both his surnames of ‘Nixon’ and ‘Huntley’ as one. Not only was this an error but ‘one member of staff…wrong date of birth of Huntley’ ( Police chief admits Dec 2003)
“Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law) then surely the previous allegations should have been collected and kept up to date on the criminal records database. It has become apparent that the reason for information not being kept up to date was due to “the backlog of un-entered case results and the absence of strategic prioritisation” ( 18/12/2003) this initially meant that there was no strategy as to what information needed to be kept and updated and what information needed to be eliminated from being stored for a further period of time as necessary. At this stage if there was a lack of peer-to-peer understanding and knowledge of the data protection act amongst the police force, they should have sought advice from the information commissioner before discarding Huntley’s previous sex and theft allegations. Perhaps recommendation from the information commissioner could have deterred such activities to be undertaken, as independent police checks should continuously be carried out to ensure that the teachers or the caretakers are not associated with any malicious criminal activities.
Consequently, it was evident that ‘Soham village college…before employing Huntley.’ However no allegations had been revealed at the time. ‘It was possible on many occasions for an officer to mark a record ‘retain’ and keep it on the CIS data base.’( Huntley sex attack report deleted 26/02/2004) If storing was an option why was that option ignored even though there is flexibility on what is legitimate to store. It appears that even if the burglary charge were to be evident in his records he would have most definitely not been fit for the job as a school caretaker.
“Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date” This takes us back to the case of a related incident of Sarah Payne who was also murdered by Mr. Whiting who was also convicted of sex related incidents. It is at this stage that the Data Protection Act should have been analysed as information on paedophiles should have been kept on national records for a lengthier period of time to avoid repeat occurrences of similar murders. In Sarah Payne’s situation the murderer was convicted of sex crimes then he was let out of prison and he stroke again, this time killing a naive little girl.
Since Huntley’s previous crimes were allegations and not legal convictions as he was not charged or found guilty of those crimes he did not legally commit an offence which coincides with the fifth principle “Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than necessary for that purpose or those purposes” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law). This is another factor that contributed to why “We deleted all the information regarding Huntley from our data files because of the Data Protection Act requirements…” Such allegations are accusations, but they hold vast amount of validity since he should have been captured as a suspect from the very beginning and he should been watched carefully and especially after his allegation were increasing in number to approximately nine involving young girls.
Consequently, if ‘Huntley’s records were automatically deleted after three years but still retained on magnetic tape’ ( Huntley sex attack report deleted 26/02/2004) It this contradicts the fifth principle “Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than necessary” as the details are supposedly meant to be destroyed totally and should not be of access. Similarly “Appropriate technical and organisation measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or to, personal data” (Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law). Having kept Huntley’s details and then using them unlawfully once the three years had been ended is also committing an offence aligned with the Data Protection Act since personal details about subjects once disposed should not be obtainable in any format this could be regarded as ‘unauthorised or unlawful processing.’
Referring back to the quotation in question, it seems as though if the police had
“Deleted all the information regarding Huntley from our data files because of the Data Protection Act requirements…” then how were still ‘retained on magnetic tape’ it remains a mystery and that even though the information was available through another source how could the Data Protection Act be misinterpreted remains unquestionable.
The eighth principle did not appear to be an issue in the case of the Huntley. This principle would have only applied if Huntley were to escape or leave the country and therefore he would be a risk in another country.
The Data Protection Act has been a central source of blame during the Soham trial. It is evident that the Data Protection Act is a ‘cumbersome and inelegant piece of legislation’ with no guidelines to explain what information is required for retention and for what length of time. In hindsight it is easy to claim that there is a need for common logic application in order to comply with the piece of legislation however, understanding the law in its correct format lies beyond human judgment in such critical cases. To discourage such situations from re-occurring the information commissioner should most definitely consider sending all police administration staff on training and ensure that there is almost a correct way of making an intuitive judgment on collecting and storing information.
References:
Bainbridge, 2000, Introduction to Computer Law . Pearson Longman.
Police Admit Vetting Weaknesses
<>
Huntley sex attack report deleted
<>
Police Chief Admits Huntley Error
<>
Chief Constable admits Huntley Information Failings
<>
Q&A: Data Protection And the Police
<>
Soham Vetting Inquiry
<>