Share and Follow
More than 365,000 hours of police time is wasted each year because of EU rules forcing officers to remove personal details from files, it can be revealed.
Under Brussels rules still applied post-Brexit, police have to go through every file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and ‘digitally Tipp-Ex’ out personal details that might breach the Data Protection Act.
The Mail on Sunday understands that the body overseeing data rules – the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) – has opposed a bid to exempt police from sharing ‘unredacted’ data with prosecutors.
Indeed, sources claim that ICO bosses warned the plan – designed to slash huge delays in the criminal justice system – could lead to Brussels ruling that the UK was not compliant with its data regulations and could end ‘free movement’ of data between the UK and Europe.
Last night, former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said: ‘I’m astounded by this. This needs to be sorted immediately.’
More than 365,000 hours of police time is wasted each year because of EU rules forcing officers to remove personal details from files, it can be revealed (stock image)
Last year, Tory MP Jane Hunt tabled an amendment to the Data Protection and Data Information (No 2) Bill that would have allowed the police and CPS to share unredacted data when making charging decisions
The Police Federation estimates that the redactions have wasted an estimated 365,000 policing hours per year since 2021. Forces could have attended almost 500,000 burglaries in the same time it takes to remove details from case files and 20 per cent of the time taken to put together a case file concerns redactions.
Last year, Tory MP Jane Hunt tabled an amendment to the Data Protection and Data Information (No 2) Bill that would have allowed the police and CPS to share unredacted data when making charging decisions. It is understood the Government did not back the amendment because of the ICO’s opposition.
A source close to the discussions said there was a ‘stand-off’ between the Government and ICO.
But the source added: ‘The Government went with the ICO. They [the ICO] were concerned there would not be parity [with the EU].’ The source said: ‘We don’t know why they want to have that parity when we are looking to make our laws more British rather than more European.’
Rory Geoghegan, from the Public Safety Foundation, said: ‘Frontline cops are superglued to desks redacting casefiles when they want to be out patrolling, investigating crime, or catching the next criminal.’ He added: ‘This avoidable burden also delays justice by slowing down the flow of cases to the CPS.’
He said: ‘It is deeply unsatisfactory that, even after the country voted to leave the EU in 2016, some of our quangos and politicians appear content to let the EU dictate to us.’
ICO deputy commissioner for regulatory policy Emily Keaney said: ‘The police and Crown Prosecution Service need to be able to share information to fulfil their duties and properly serve the public. We do not believe data protection should be a barrier to this and are committed to working with them so they can do this.’
She added: ‘However, these organisations deal with the most sensitive of data and it’s important they are accountable for safeguarding it. We are concerned that disapplying the application of the rules to police and CPS could lead to this information about victims being disclosed to the wrong people. Any changes to data protection law are a matter for the Government, not the ICO.’
