The case which I am discussing this week, is yet another reminder of the high duty which is correctly placed upon the Police not to misuse/ mishandle the power they have over people’s personal lives, by being privy to all of the information contained within criminal justice databases.
Following a conviction for an offence of violence in 2017, my client Alan was placed on the Violent and Sex Offender Register (VISOR). He had not, however, committed any sexual offences.
In early 2022, Alan entered into a new relationship with a woman whom I will identify as Clare. As Clare lived with her young children, an Initial Child Protection Conference was held in early Summer 2022. This meeting was attended by members of Social Services and a representative of Norfolk Constabulary. Also in attendance was Clare, her mother, her sister, and her former partner. During the course of the meeting the Police representative incorrectly stated that Alan was on the VISOR for a sexual offence, and hence was a sex offender. This was completely incorrect.
Following the meeting, this incorrect information was disseminated, and Alan began to receive abuse and death threats from members of Clare’s family. In response to a complaint raised by Alan with Norfolk Constabulary, the Police staff member who had attended the Child Protection Conference shockingly admitted that she had believed that as Alan was a VISOR subject, he was therefore a sex offender, failing to make the distinction between violent and sexual offenders.
Although Alan does have a criminal record, we all know that society understandably holds sexual offences in particular abhorrence, and for Alan to be so carelessly and wrongly stigmatised in this way was, in my opinion, an unforgivable breach of the duty of care which the Police owed to him, as the custodians of his personal data. Indeed, this inaccurate information could have put Alan himself at risk of serious violence and did blight his life and relationships in all manner of ways.
Even the Police’s subsequent correction of the erroneous information, does not necessarily undo all the harm which has been caused. There could be those who continue to believe or propagate the error, whether out of genuine suspicion or motivations of malice – such that there might indeed hang over Alan’s life, for a long time to come, a cloud caused by smoke which the Police have generated without any fire.
Alan instructed me to pursue a claim against the Police. Norfolk Constabulary, whilst admitting that “something went wrong”, initially sought to dispute liability and cited the case of Scott v LGBT Foundation Ltd 2020, in which it was found that an oral statement of information is not “processing” under the definition of the Data Protection Act. Notwithstanding this argument, I maintained Alan’s claim for compensation, on the basis that he had viable claims in negligence and/or for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life).
I am pleased to confirm that I have recently settled Alan’s claim for substantial damages, plus legal costs.
If you have suffered a breach of your data – whether that is an inappropriate disclosure of accurate personal information, or, as in Alan’s case, wholly inaccurate information given to third parties by authorities such as the Police, please contact me for advice.
Names have been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.