Intellectual Property Law

Recently the BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7520139.stm) that the police could be obliged to remove thousands of old criminal records of minor offences from the national database This report came after the Information Tribunal dismissed appeals from 5 police forces including Humberside and Greater Manchester and instead upheld the information commissioner's ruling that the holding of records for minor offences breached key principles of the Data Protection Act ("DPA").

The records that were at issue related to a caution and minor thefts such as theft by teenager of a 99p packet of meat in 1984. This information had floated to the surface when the individuals concerned were making job applications. Although not confirmed, it is likely that the minor convictions fell under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act exceptions which allow an employer to request additional information on "spent" convictions when recruiting for certain professions such as a teacher or doctor.

The Information Tribunal confirmed that the DPA was explicit in saying that any personal data held must be relevant, up-to-date and not excessive. Clearly, the retention of information on the theft of a packet of meat almost 25 years ago was seen to be irrelevant today. The Information Tribunal's decision has the effect of opening the floodgates to applications from thousands of offenders who committed a minor crime when they were young.

These applications will be further fuelled from the fact that criminal records are currently allowed to remain on the police national computer for up to 100 years. Ian Redhead of the Association of Chief Police Officers expressed the disappointment of the police forces to the decision and commented that the decision could have far reaching consequences for the police service as a whole. Sensibly, Mr Redhead also commented that it was important that clear national guidelines are now put in place so that forces take a consistent approach to the retention of criminal records.

Although the ruling is sensible and, on the surface, a victory for those who struggle to get employment as a result of a minor blip on their life CV, Mr Redhead is perhaps rightly cautious. For example, whilst the ruling is satisfactory for offenders who have only committed only one minor offence in their life times, would it also extend to serial offenders who have committed minor crimes "x" years ago? Surely in this case, information of all of the crimes committed by a serial offender would still be relevant under the DPA. The position is not as clear-cut as it originally appears to be.  KP