Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

1.1.

The purpose of this guidance to provide clear outline advice and good practice for the Police Service regarding information sharing with Watch Schemes. It deals with issues surrounding the disclosure of information to Watch Schemes and the disclosure of Watch Schemes details to third parties.

2.1.

There are now many types of Watch Schemes in existence. They are often made up of members of the public or business community and are primarily established to prevent and detect crime and disorder in a local area. Watch Schemes in most circumstances cannot be regarded as an agency of the police or as an organisation accountable to the police. Many are represented by scheme co-ordinators, although in some instances schemes are organised into local associations.

2.2.

Watch schemes can be vital partners of the police in the fight against crime. Their role in preventing crime, supporting victims and detecting crime is a key one. To ensure their effectiveness, details of crimes and incidents may be passed to co-ordinators and scheme members. In the vast majority of cases this information will be depersonalised information on crime patterns and trends, as well as general crime prevention advice.

2.3.

Since the law does not regulate the disclosure of such depersonalised or anonymised information there should be few issues to consider before disclosing.

2.4.

Particular care should be taken in cases where Watch members work with the police as Support Groups (often from police premises), to disseminate crime information to scheme co-ordinators/members. It is circumstances such as these, where the handling of personal data may become an issue.

3.1.

The police have an important and general power at common law that allows them to disclose information as and when appropriate. As an established and accountable organisation they hold and disclose personal data for the primary purposes of:
(a) the prevention or detection of crime; and/or
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

3.3.

The fair and lawful handling of personal information is dealt with in both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. It is essential, if the Police Service is to retain the confidence of the public in their use of the information it holds that the principles of these Acts are observed.

3.4.

The Data Protection Act 1998
The Data Protection Act 1998 exists to ensure that personal information is processed and handled in a fair and lawful way. Anyone dealing with personal information must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They say that data must be:

• fairly and lawfully processed;

• processed for limited purposes;

• adequate, relevant and not excessive;

• accurate;

• not kept longer than necessary;

• processed in accordance with the data subject's rights;

• secure;

• not transferred to other countries without adequate protection.

The Act also contains certain exemptions, some of which relate to the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. These exemptions will permit the disclosure of personal details in particular cases without an individual’s consent. However, these are not blanket exemptions from the need to obtain such consent and are only available on a case by case basis where there would be a real likelihood of prejudice to crime prevention and detection matters if disclosure did not occur.

3.5.

The Human Rights Act 1998
The general purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society. Article 8, "The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence", is relevant when it comes to the disclosure of personal information. The Act makes it clear that public authorities may only interfere with someone’s private life where they have legal authority to do so, the interference is necessary in a democratic society for one of the aims stated in the Article and is proportionate to that aim. (The prevention and detection of crime is one of those aims).

3.6.

A flowchart has been designed to assist in dealing with the disclosure of information - see Appendix A.

4.1.

As previously stated, the disclosure of general depersonalised crime and incident information is not covered by the Data Protection Act. Therefore, messages that state, for example, 'during the night in the past week there has been a series of shed burglaries on Spencer Avenue etc' are not an area of contention.

4.2.

There may of course still be issues to consider before releasing such information (see 4.10). A useful guiding principle here is, if the information has been or could be released to the public via the press then there should be no issues with the release of such information to Watch schemes.

4.3.

Regarding the disclosure of personal information, in the context of this guidance, this could be in relation to a victim of crime, a suspect, an offender or a member of a Watch scheme.

4.4.

In relation to victims of crime an obligation of confidence exists between the police and the individual and this places a restriction on disclosing personal information for purposes other than which it was provided. A victim should be informed as to what the data is to be used for, including to whom it might be disclosed.

4.5.

In the rare circumstances where it may be necessary to disclose personal information to Watch schemes about victims, such information needs to be treated with the utmost sensitivity and disclosure of some types of crime victimisations to Watch Schemes would be inappropriate. Therefore, a number of criteria should guide disclosure policies.

4.6.

The first point to be considered relates to the victim's consent and the essential question is, "Has the victim consented to the disclosure?". Disclosures of personal information can be made if explicit consent from an individual is given. Without consent, the disclosure of personal information to Watch schemes in respect of crime or incidents would need to be justified for either specific crime prevention or detection purposes.

4.7.

The justification for the disclosure without consent must be that there would be a substantial chance, rather than a mere risk, that in the particular case the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders would be prejudiced. The important question to ask is, "Will the failure to disclose personal data in this case be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of a crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders?".

4.8.

The third criterion relates to confidentiality and sensitivity, and its application requires professional judgement. The key question here is, "Will disclosure of this information cause distress or embarrassment to the victim?".

4.9.

There is no one rule to apply when considering the disclosure of information to Watch schemes or indeed to the general public. Each disclosure must be treated individually and assessed on a case by case basis. Several things should be taken into consideration:

• Is there a legal basis for disclosure?

• Is the information sensitive?

• Will the failure to disclose personal data in this case be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of a crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders?

• Is the disclosure likely to cause any distress? (Particularly if the information is about a victim of crime).

• Will it raise the fear of crime?

• Proportionality? What is the least intrusive option?

4.10.

All such disclosure should be fully evidenced. Policies and procedures that reflect these criteria will meet the requirements of the both the Data Protection and Human Rights Act.

4.11.

There should be similar considerations made with regard to suspect or offender details. However, it is likely in most cases that consent would not be sought, on the grounds that it would prejudice the investigation. So for example, passing details of suspect vehicles, including registered numbers, for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime, does not contravene the provisions of the relevant Acts.

5.1.

In some cases co-ordinators and scheme members work as part of a ‘Watch Support Group' in police premises. Their role includes communicating crime information to other Watch Schemes in an area. Usually, this is likely to be general, depersonalised information. However, as they are working within police premises they may come into contact (directly or indirectly) with personal data. As a result and to overcome any restrictions which would diminish their effectiveness or create conflict regarding the use of sensitive information their role and responsibilities need to be clearly defined. (See Appendix B: Model Code of Practice for volunteers at Police premises).

5.2.

Where members of Watch Schemes are to undertake specific tasks involving data protection issues, clear policy guidelines and training should be provided for the volunteers and monitoring systems should be in place. The ACPO policy on vetting Watch Co-ordinators states that, where Watch Co-ordinators or volunteers have access to police premises, as part of a support team or similar, it is a sensible security measure to 'vet' such people. (See Appendix C: ACPO Policy on Vetting Watch Co-ordinators).

5.3.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, volunteers may be criminally liable if they obtain or disclose personal data held by the Chief Constable without his or her authority. (See Appendix D: Guidance notes for Police Considering the Services of Volunteers at Police Stations).

5.4.

It is therefore recommended that all members with such access should be subject to vetting (such as a "Counter Terrorist Check" or other local checks in accordance with Force policy).

5.5.

A blanket approach to vetting other Watch co-ordinators may be an onerous and costly task and may not be based upon real need. Vetting of co-ordinators is a matter for individual Chief Constables to decide in accordance with local concerns and need. However, it is acknowledged that Watch co-ordinators need to be trusted and respected by the community they serve. It is also important that they have the confidence of police, other partner agencies and that they do not pose a risk to the community by being in put in a position of trust. These all support the argument to carry out vetting as a safeguard. The associated costs should be weighed against the potential risks.

6.1.

A further area for consideration is the disclosure of personal information of Watch Scheme members. Generally, this should be treated in the same way as all other personal information the Police Service holds. However, due to the community nature of many Watch Schemes it is often necessary for details of Watch co-ordinators for example, to be passed on to others to be contacted about the scheme or for a specific operation or initiative.

6.2.

It is recommended that authorisation is sought when personal details of new Watch Scheme members are taken to be retained by the Police and a statement which specifies those to whom the data will and may be passed to. In most circumstances this would be as a point of contact for local purposes, such as to Watch Support Group initiatives. It would also be advisable to include any National Associations who may wish to make contact with scheme members. (See Appendix E: Model Watch Scheme Registration Form and Data Handling Statement).

6.3.

When disclosing Watch details to a third party, it is vital that the purpose for doing so is clearly established. It may be necessary for an agreement or protocol to be signed between the police and those receiving the information. This should state that the disclosure of the information has been given with the consent of the Watch member and will be handled in a fair and lawful manner, in accordance with the individual’s rights, not kept for longer than necessary and kept secure.

6.4.

If unsure, contact the Watch member first before disclosing their information. Unless explicit consent has been obtained from the Watch member, such an agreement should also state that the information should not be passed on to any other party.

7.1.

In some areas, other organisations may be responsible for the distribution of information to assist in the prevention and detection of crime. Local authorities, for example, have established Neighbourhood Watch units with dedicated staff responsible for communicating with Watch Schemes. These take away much of the administrative work carried out by existing police departments or staff specifically employed by the police for this purpose.

7.2.

Wandsworth Council in London is a good example of this type of arrangement. They adhere to all of the data protection guidelines mentioned and have a strict code of practice for dealing with the passing of information. (see Watchlink crime bulletin at Watchlink)

7.3.

When it comes to the disclosure of information to a Local Authority, or any other relevant organisation, this should be dealt with in the same way as information given to a Watch Scheme or co-ordinator. These special relationships should not assume any exemptions from data protection legislation. Information should be "depersonlised" before being shared and a clear code of practice or protocol drawn up to govern the type of information and manner in which it is to be used. It would be useful to circulate this guidance to such organisations for their information.

8.1.

Most Police Forces have produced, in co-operation with Watch Schemes in their area, procedural, policy or good practice guidance for dealing with the workings between the two organisations. It is recommended that these should contain some of the advice given in this guidance.

8.2.

Information about the Data Protection Act 1998 can be found on the website of the Office of the Information Commissioner: www.dataprotection.gov.uk. In addition, a useful piece of guidance has been produced by the Information Commissioner for members of Watch Schemes. This can be obtained by contacting the Commissioner’s office.

8.3.

Further advice can be obtained from your Force Data Protection Officer.