The Association of Chief Police Officers has published
"Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer, incorporating the Step Down Model" (.pdf) version 1.3, 16th March 2006.
1.3 The Retention Guidelines are based on a format of restricting access to PNC data, rather than the deletion of that data. The restriction of access is achieved by setting strict time periods after which the releveant event histories will 'step down' and only be open to inspection by the police. Following the 'step down' other users of PNC will be unaware of the existance of such records, save for those occaisions where the individual is the subject of an Enhanced Check under the Criminal Records Bureau vetting process. In those cases the data should be dealt with as intelligence and only disclosed where the relevance test has been applied, on the authority of the Chief Officer
This "step down procedure" really means that once your data has been sucked into the Police National Computer, it will never actually be deleted, except under the most exceptional circumstances. Given the need for disaster recovery and backup systems for this bit of the Critical National Infrastructure, the data may never be truly deleted even if it is so ordered to be done.
How can this be deemed to be "proportionate and necessary" under the Principles of Data Protection ?
Why are the records of people who have been Acquitted of an alleged offence to be retained until such innocent people become 100 years old ?
Note that these Guidelines, like all ACPO Policies, are not legally binding on Chief Constables, who may choose to ignore any bits of it that they wish to, but probably most of them will comply, most of the time..
The Nominal Records of the Police National Computer system is slowly being transformed by already delayed Information Management, Prioritisation, Analysis, Co-ordination and Tasking (IMPACT) computer system
This new Data Retention policy effectively destroys the original intent of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 , whereby "spent" convictions, for minor offences i.e. those attracting less than 2 years in prison, are meant to be expunged from the criminal records, so that they will not dog you for the rest of your life if you are not a habitual criminal who continually re-offends. Back in 1974, when the Police National Computer was created, it was not capable of recording Criminal Convictions etc. but its functions and capabilities have been expanded over the years.
This sort of "function creep" should be borne in mind in any discussion about the National Identity Register centralised biometric database.
1.5 It is recognised thay the introduction of these guidelines may have implications for the business of the non police agencies with which the police currently share PNC data. Work is already under way to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the needs of all stake holders.
Who exactly are these other "non police agencies" with which this data is currently shared ?
Surely this will lead to an increase of parallel, partial copies of the PNC database being duplicated by these other "non police agencies", over which there is no public
control and acountability ?
How about some public consultation on this policy, and not just secret talks with "stakeholders" i.e. vested interests ?
2.5 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 amended PACE providing the police with the additional power to take DNA samples and fingerprints without consent, from all person detained at a police station having been arrested for a recordable offence. Where such an arrest results in no further action being taken, the individual is referred to as a 'CJ Arrestee'.
Where is the justification for treating "innocent until proven guilty" "CJ Arrestees" like this ?
3.1 When a nominal record is created or updated on the PNC by virtue of an individual being the subject of a Conviction, Penalty Notice for Disorder, Acquittal or CJ Arrestee, the record will contain relevant personal data together with the details of the offence which resulted in the record creation. The record will be retained on the PNC until that person is deemed to have attained the age of 100 years of age. Where a subject is shown to have more than one date of birth, th earliest date will be used to determine when 100 years of age has been obtained
Apart from the physical impossability of actually having more than one date of birth per person, presumably this refers to different identity documents or databases which contain errors.
This is an extraordinary statement of Principle. How can this be deemed to be "proportionate and ncessary" under the Principles of Data Protection ?
Why are the records of people who have been Acquitted of a an alleged offence to be retained until such innocent people become 100 years old ?
The records of the offences for which someone has been Acquitted should not be a Police record, but a Criminal Justice / Courts record, and then only for the purposes of preventing a future double jeopardy re-prosecution for the same alleged crime.
N.B. this is one of the long established principles of English Law which the notorious disgraced ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett weakened with his Criminal Justice Act 2003. but since, even under this Act, the decison to prosecute in the face of "compelling new evidence" (usally DNA analysis or re-analysis from "cold cases") lies with the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions and not the Police, there is still no justification for Acquittals to be retained for so long on the Police National Computer.
4.32 Chief Officers are the Data Controllers of all PNC records referred to above created by their force. They have the discretion in exceptional circumstances, to authorise the deletion of any conviction, penalty notice for disorder, acquittal or arrest histories, 'owned' by them.4.33 ACPO has approved an 'Exceptional Case procedure' to assist Chief Officers in the exercise of this discretion (see Appendix 2).
Chief Officers have the discretion to authorise the deletion of any specific data entry on the PNC 'owned' by them. They are also responsible for the authorisation of the destruction of DNA and fingerprints associated with the specific entry. It is suggested that this discretion should only be exercised in exceptional cases.[...]
Following the recent widespread media covverage relating to the retention of DNA, it is anticipated that during the next twelve months, there will be a high volume of requests.
[...]
It is not recommended that any proactive exercise is undertaken to determine potentially exceptional cases, however the DNAFRP will be incontact with forces to establish examples of deletions which have already taken place.
There should be exactly such a proactive review of the existing PNC records, for the sake of restoring lost public confidence and trust in this "Big Brother" Police State database . It should not be a one off exercise either, but there should be an ongoing, independent review of such data.
| Person | Outcome | Sentence | Offence | Step down Non-police Users | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adult | Custody | 6 Months or more | A B C | N/A 35 Years 30 Years | Subject deemed to have reached 100 years of age |
| Young Person | Custody | 6 Months or more | A B C | N/A 30 Years 25 Years | |
| Adult | Custody | Less than 6 Months | A B C | N/A 20 Years 15 Years | |
| Young Person | Custody | Less than 6 Months | A B C | N/A 15 Years 10 Years | |
| Adult | Non-custody | A B C | 20 Years 15 Years 12 Years | ||
| Young Person | Non-custody | A B C | 15 Years 12 Years 10 Years | ||
| Adult | Caution | A B C | 10 Years 5 Years 5 Years | ||
| Young Persont | Reprimand or Warning | A B C | 10 Years 5 Years 5 Years | ||
| Adult or Young Persont | PND Acquittal CJ Arrestee Decriminalised (Lie on file, sine die etc) | A B C | On Resulting | ||
What about sentences of exactly 6 months ? Are these rounded up or down for the Data Retention period ?
The rest of this document is made up of a huge list of category A, B and C offences, which shows just how complicated and repetitive the Home Office legislative onslaught has been on our freedoms and liberties.
Category A - pages 18 to 55 = 37 pages @ about 30 per page= about 1100 offences
Category B - pages 56 to 98 = 42 pages @ about 30 per page= about 1260 offences
Category C - pages 99 to 228 / 229 = 128 and bit pages (mostrly about 30 per page, but some at 25 per page) = about 3600 offences
Approximately about 6000 offences !
This is far too many offences - no human being can remember all of these !
Note how many offences there are which are essentially similar, but which have not been repealed.
N.B. There may be a few offences which have been replaced by recent legislation, but which are already on the database.
Unfortunately, the document does not have any cross references to the actual Act of Parliament where the offence is defined.
How many people have been charge with these of the Category A within living memory or are ever likely to be so charged ? e.g.
- 11.7.37.1 Permit premises to be altered intending they be used for the production of chemical weapons
- 6.1.1.13 Slaying lord high treasurer
- 6.1.1.20 Compassing, contriving, planning or advising imprisonment or restraint of the sovereign's heir or successor
- 6.12.173.1 Knowingly cause a nuclear explosion
- 8.2.1 Embracery
(offence of attempting to influence a jury or juror) - 6.1.2 Misprision of treason ( "where a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report it as soon as he can to a justice of the peace or other authority. The offender does not need to consent to the treason; mere knowledge is enough.")
How can people tell who is drunk and who is insane and by how much ?
- 13.3.21 Supplying firearm to a drunk person
- 11.3.25 Supplying firearm/shotgun/air weapon to insane person.
- 11.3.25.1 Supplying firearm to insane person.
Some of the Category B offences appear to be nonsensical:
- 7.2.15 Distributing recording of threatening, abusive, insulting sounds to stir up racial hatred
- 7.2.16 Showing recording of threatening, abusive, insulting sounds to stir up racial hatred
- 7.2.17 Playing recording of threatening, abusive, insulting sounds to stir up racial hatred
What "sounds" (not "words" or "visual images") can possibly stir up "racial hatred" ?
Some of the Category C offences seem to be impossibly rare prosecutions:
- 11.6.30 Hiring part of a crossbow to a person under 17
- 12.26.9.1 Drive cattle furiously to the obstruction/danger/annoyance of residents or passengers
- 4.3.26 Possession of gold filed from coins
- 4.4.13 Uttering a medal resembling current coin
- 4.6.5 Contributing to bankruptcy by gambling
- 4.6.6 Contributing to bankruptcy by speculating
- 5.572 Possessing or have on premises any stolen dog skin after a previous summary conviction
- 5.5.83 Stealing as servant
- 12.13.70.1 Wrestling, fighting or struggling with any untrained bull
Others seem completely contrary to the Human Rights Act fundamental human right of free expression, and the modern Internet. Do our friends at the Open Rights Group know about offences such as:
- 12.2.52 Make literary work knowing or believing an unauthorised broadcast was to be made
- 12.2.52.2 Make dramatic work knowing or believing an unauthorised broadcast was to be made
- 12.2.52.3 Make musical work knowing or believing an unauthorised broadcast was to be made
- 12.2.52.2 Make artisitic work knowing or believing an unauthorised broadcast was to be made
This massive list of offences does not yet include the literally dozens of serious, presumably Category A offences, which have been inflicted on us through Acts like the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Identity Cards Act 2006 and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationailty Act 2006, all of which received Royal Assent on 30th March 2006.
"8.7.25.1 breach of an anti-social behavior order" is a Category C offence, brought in by the Anti-Social Behavior Act 2003 which amended the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
However there are two types of controversial Anti-Social Behavior Orders, the ones which are imposed as a sort of bail condition following conviction of another offence, and the particularly evil ones which are imposed without any criminal conviction whatsoever. Breach of either type of ASBO could lead to up to 5 years in prison.
How long are such ASBOs retained on the PNC Nominal Index if they are not breached ?
Surely the ASBOs are actually recorded on the PNC ? If not, then where ?
Another area of controversy - there are no offences under the Hunting Act 2004 which banned fox hunting with dogs, mentioned in this list either.
There is no mention of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Orders, either as an offence if they are breached, or for how long data about them, or associated with them is to be retained - remember that persons (including British citizens) subjected to such Contol Orders by the Home Secretary have not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime in a Court.
Neither are there any of the controversial Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 offences to do with demonstrations without prior written consent in the Designated Area of up to 1 kilometer in a straight line around Parliament Square, or the Designated Areas around Military Bases or other Crown Land e.g. Buckingham Palace etc.
DNAFRP contacts:
Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead (Hampshire)
ACPO Chairman of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Portfolio Group.
Assistant/Deputy Chief Constable Adrian McAllister (Lancashire)
ACPO Recording and Disclosure of Convictions Portfolio Holder
Telephone: 023 8074 4637
Email: dna_frpproject@hampshire.pnn.police.uk
Address: DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project,
Kings Worthy Court,
Court Road,
Kings Worthy,
Winchester,
SO23 7QA
ACPO is rapidly becoming a State within a State.
Yet another label, I'm now a "CJ Arrestee" :-(
It's not the kind of answer I was looking for, but at least now I know what the data retention period is for the non-conviction info listed on the PNC. If I live that long, I'll have to check by requesting another data subject access from the Met on my 100th birthday.
br -d
According to this, "Attempted Suicide" is still an offence (1.7.3.1)?
Thankfully mine wasn't reported to the police.
Thanks for posting this, I've passed links to my colleagues.
I'm not sure if struggling with an untrained bull or possessing stolen dog skin is more attractive...what about trained bulls?
@ Duncan - of the 6000 or so offences listed, there must be quite a lot which have now been Decriminalised or have been replaced by more recent legislation, but which still exist on old criminal records.
There has been such an avalanche of criminal offences created by the current Labour government that nobody, not even the Police force, has an accurate list of them all.
What "sounds" (not "words" or "visual images") can possibly stir up "racial hatred" ?
There have been occasions when opposing football fans have made hissing noises at Tottenham fans, allegedly in reference to the gas chambers. There is also the example of monkey chants aimed at black players.
@ Paul - those examples could well be "threatening, abusive" or "insulting" but how can they actually "stir up racial hatred" ?
Especially as a "recording" rather than a face to face chant or taunt ?
Has anyone ever been arrested for this, let alone convicted ?
I was seeking to illustrate, rather than validate the statement. However one could argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that an aspect of racial hatred is the portrayal of the target as sub-human, something which monkey chanting is intended to convey. One could conceive of situations in which a recording of crowds making monkey chants was used to intimidate black people or to reinforce a message of racial superiority, but as Jim Murphy would say, "that's just a debating point".
Playing a recording of Wagner outside a synagogue could be a 'sound' designed to stir up racial hatred. Certainly has the potential to create a Breach of the Peace.
@ HG - surely even the British legal system makes a clear distinction between "sounds" and "music" ?
In what way can a Wagner concert actually "stir up racial hatred" ?
How are the Police meant to be able to tell if such a Wagner concert was recorded by, say, Daniel Barenboim or even if the music is actually by Wagner, note for note ?
Another set of offences missing from the list of about 6000 recordable offences on the Pololice National Computer seems to be anything to do with selling honours or peerages under the
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925
Presumably this means that Des Smith and whoever else who gets arrested e.g. perhaps Lord Levy or Lord Adonis etc. in the current NuLabour scandal, will not actually have their DNA samples taken on arrest.
Work this one out then! I was arrested by a disgruntled police officer in 2004 for section five of the public order act. NB: My first time ever to be in trouble with the police in my life.
Then now (2006) I get a CRB check or police check and guess what. Not only have I got a caution for a section five public order offence, I have also got a section three in the name of Gary Paul Preston arrested on the Isle of Man in 2002. It took the CRB 65 days to amend this certificate. So how did it happen?
Well that police man who arrested me along with his mates. Did not create me a record on the PNC, instead they added my name and offence to Gary Pauls record, so he is I and I is he.
Yes, if I was ever in trouble with the law again and was pnc'd by the officer it would look like I was telling him fibs when I would say I am not Gary Paul
I have read all comments here with interest and wish to add my own dilema.
I am a UK citizen living and working in Taiwan, I am also married to a Taiwanese national, we married in london.
Currently I remain in Taiwan with a resident visa that has been issued to me based on my employment only and not based on my marriage.
I am in my second year of employment in Taiwan and I have to renew my visa and work permit every year as well as undergo a medical check.
If I were in Taiwan with a spouse resident visa based on my marriage then every three years I am required to renew it. However, to apply for a spouse resident visa based on my marriage I am required to supply a police criminal record check. My dilema is below and it goes to show just how stupid the UK system is.
For example, the last conviction was 10 years ago. Prior to that a previous conviction of 3 offences 24 years ago resulting in a sentence to 3 months in prison to run concurrent, whicj adds up to 9 months but only served 3 months but released early due to good behaviour.
Surely if it were simply the case that spent convictions under the rehabilitation period then the person with spent convictions doesn't need to reveal them, right?
Then why is it when having said the above........ when a previous offender requests PNC for a criminal record check does the previous history show up?
Surely a person has rehabilitated enough as 10 years have passed since their last conviction and have in fact rehabilitated enough to have there criminal history deleted from file.
To enable people, who have offended, suffered the appropriate penalty and reformed, to be legally entitled to rehabilitation, by concealing their official records”or having there history removed from file.
2,Either a person is reformed well enough and his sentence is spent, or he is not; and that is that. A person with a spent sentence is perfectly entitled to become a judge, a nanny, a prison warder, a scout master or the Archbishop of Canterbury, correct?
Consequential penalties, which come from having an official record, are so severe and have such a penalising effect for life it is unacceptable that they are not spelled out as part of the sentence.
It seems rather odd to me that as a previous offender was to lets say fill out an application form for a spouse resident visa based on a marriage to a foreigner and whom wishes to reside in his/her country ticks a check-box when filling out a spouse visa application form stating that they have no criminal convictions then they would actually be providing false information.
I say this because to apply to reside in another country one would have to supply a police criminal record check and upon obtaining this information "all previous criminal history held on the PNC is supplied AND I MIGHT ADD WITHOUT ANYTHING RELATING TO THE WORDS AS "spent convictions" Do you see my point?
Providing a PNC check with past convictions to obtain a spouse visa would have an adverse effect on the persons application as I doubt that any country recognises the words SPENT or IN FACT KNOW there meaning, also take into account that they had already submitted a form to their spouse's countrys representative office indicating they had no criminal record and yet upon submitting a police record check it would stipulate differently.
Maybe someone has been in the same situation as has managed to get around it but when making enquiries at both the Metropolitian Police and PNC all they say is you may benefit from legal advice???
Just exactly why spent convictions are not deleted from the PNC systems after the rehabilitation period and just how long are the details retained on file for?
Is there a possibility that they could all be removed because according to some information I obtained last year it states the life retention of a criminal record comes about from the conviction and sentencing at Richmond on 12/8/82
for 3 offences of burglary.
Sentence was 3 month imprisonment for each offence, the sentences
to run concurrently.
This sentence fulfills the requirement of ACPO weeding rules. Meaning that the criminal record remains on file for life until I die or turn 100 years of age.
Can anyone shed any light on this for me please as to whether or not I can legally apply to have a clean slate on my record.
Well guess what the police done to me?
They added me to another Mr Prestons Police National Computer Record i.e. a previous offenders, instead of making me my own Police National Computer Record within 24hrs of my arrest.
I lost my Job over this,however it is now all sorted out and I have been given a new arrest/summons number 06/217537U.
All I can say is that two little girls named Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman have lost their lives due to the "Police" giving false information into the Police National Computer Police Forces who condone this should be named and shamed,
The force that feed false infomation about me onto the Record of a Mr Gary Paul Preston was the Gwent Police...
I for one am disgusted this is clearly "white collar crime" likewise they should not be allowed to get away with fabrications like this it costs lives...
I have just submitted a complaint to the information commission regarding the new ACPO bullshit guidelines, there is no way you can check if you offence has been stepped down or obtain a copy of your record in basic or standard check format, contact me if you have a similar problem. As with guidelines they are not law and what we need is this process reviewed and a new act issued.
@ Paul - Good Luck !
Remember that ACPO claim that they are not a Public Authority , especially for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), despite being subsidised with taxpayers money by the Home Office.
You might have to re-submit your complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, aimed at your own specific Police Force, each of which is covered by the FOIA and the Data Protection Act.
The complaint made has been submitted to the Info Commissioners Office listing Notts Police and the CRB. Cheers
Paolo204 at yahoo dot co dot uk
If you read the contributors list on the inside page of this document you will see the likes of liberty and NARCO, just had a formal reply back from NARCO saying the ACPO Guidelines took no notice of any suggestions and "wasted there time" by completely ignoring them. That’s the police and a labour administration for you.!
..does that mean if an offence is 'stepped down', it wont show on an enhanced CRB disclosure?
If my caution comes up on a CRB after 10 years what do I do to get it rightfully removed?
@ Marjorie - in theory, according to the quotation at the top of the article:
How well this works in practice, is a mystery.
Does the CRB wait until there is a request for an Enhanced Disclosure, do a lookup on the PNC, and then wait for all the individual Police Forces to come back with individual confirmations that each item on file has been signed off for "intelligence disclosure" by each of the 60 or so Chief Constables of the various Police Forces, or by people acting with their delegated authority ?
Or does each Police Force mark up their Police National Computer records with "permitted for Enhanced Disclosure" flags beforehand ?
Can their IT systems actually automatically "age" records through the "step down" procedure as time passes, or is it all done by hand ?
Thanks for answering. Considering I was cautioned by the police force that lost Ian Huntley's records I can only presume they're not so hot ont the efficiency! Its frustrating to have been given a caution and promised it would be deleted after five years, only to be told four and a half years in that oops you've got another five years whacked on. It hardly seems fair?
Thanks for the quick replies, it's appreciated.
So in theory an enhanced CRB disclosure would more than likely reveal convictions that have been 'stepped down'?
If convictions have been stepped down and appear on an enhanced disclosure is there any recourse?
So this came into play officially on 31st march 06. Does anyone know when this will actually be implented. Will it only apply to records created on or after the 31st March 06?
Hi Guys/Girls
I have applied to emigrate and infomation disclosure has been requested. I have actualy stated the offences I have been convicted for on the form.
I have 4 convictions one of assault from over 20 years ago. As there are more than 3 I understand 20 years need to elapse before deletion. But I have been informed all will stay on for life as I have a conviction for violence is this true. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks
According to an email reply we got today, it seems that the Criminal Records Bureau is still in the process of "considering the implemntation" and "consulting with the relvant bodies" about the "step down model", so, presumably, for now, the old rules apply.
See Criminal Records Bureau Enhanced Disclosures and the ACPO "step down model" for the Police National Computer
In response to wtwu. Thanks for that, with a bit of luck my caution will expire under the old rules and be deleted before the new model is implemented. It may be worth me requesting a subject access check in five months to see if it really has gone? Here's hoping!
It seems unjust to me that people who were given cautions and informed by legal aid and the police that if they accepted them, they would last a set amount of time and then be deleted can just be told, u-ho we changed the rules, sorry!
If the law is supposed to be a deterrent how can people who've already broken it go back in time and not do what they did because the punishment is now more severe?
Also maybe people with a borderline case wouldn't have accepted the caution but taken their chances in court - they're taking away a persons right to weigh up their options.
If double jeopardy protects someone from being tried twice for the same crime, surely altering a punishment that has been decided upon, stated and issued shouldn’t be justifiable either?
...do you think it is likely that 'stepped down' convictions will still show on an enhanced CRB?
I have three that were 'stepped down' in 1996 and have to complete an enhanced CRB soon for my employer, who doesn't know about my past.
Please help, I am worried sick that my past will come back to haunt me over 20 years later )-:
@ Marjorie - why not write to or ring up the Criminal Records Bureau helpline and ask them ?
See the CRB contacts page
They are meant to explain these things to the public.
wtwu, thank you so much. I have just used their contact form to make my enquiry. As soon as I receive a response I will post it here.
I was falsely accused of a serious crime by a drugged up criminal, for her own peverted reasons. Following 15 months of police investigation and around 4 months on bail, the case was rightfully dropped. However, I now find my DNA, fingerprint & general records being kept forever. I don't even believe that they would be deleted after 100 years, should I somehow live that long! It's an absolute disgrace that this is possible & that the police can take & retain such data forever, purely under the act of arrest. Let's face it, you can be arrested for virtually anything nowadays, even mistaken identity (ie looking like an alleged criminal). It's obviously their covert way of building up their databases, as they realise that they cannot get away with inforcing it on all citizens at the current time. It's Orwell's 1984 alright, just 20 years or so later than he predicted!
Visit my site and read the full Criminal Records Bureau report. They clearly say it was the Gwent police.
And ohh make sure you have a cup of tea or coffee as it is a long report. A step by step report from the start to the end. It's what I like to call termonlogical bulls**t.
@ Gareth - our planned comment has expanded into a full blog posting.
See When did Criminal Records Bureau clerks become "Agents" ?
Does anyone know when the Court of Appeal decision is due re deleting old convictions?
See story: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8113125.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194794/Johnsons-review-wipe-millions-convictions-police-national-minor-criminals-second-chance.html