“Clare’s Law” is the poignant, public- facing name of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) – not a piece of legislation as such, but an ‘information sharing’ policy implemented by the Home Office in England and Wales on International Women’s Day 2014; it commemorates Clare Wood, a woman who was murdered by her former partner. DVDS provides key guidance to the Police in how to exercise their data control powers to warn members of the public about potential criminal threats, specifically in the context of domestic abuse. The publicity surrounding this scheme rightfully encourages people – most commonly women, of course – to exercise their ‘right to ask’ the Police for information about a partner, or the partner of a relative, so they can protect themselves/ their family from a potential abuser.
As with all aspects of the law, however, it is a system which is only as good as the persons administering it, and if inaccurately used it can cause harm rather than prevent it, either in the form of a ‘false negative’ result – wherein the Police fail to disclose details of relevant complaints – or, as befell my client Andrew, a ‘false positive’ – wherein an innocent man is wrongly accused by reason of a Police data error.
As of early 2023, my client Andrew (a man of exemplary character), entered into a new relationship with a woman called Rebecca. In May 2023, Rebecca contacted her local Force, the Metropolitan Police, to seek information regarding Andrew under “Clare’s Law”. Rebecca had no personal concerns about Andrew, but having met Andrew through a dating agency and having previously experienced coercive and controlling behaviour from a former partner, she quite understandably felt it was far better to be safe than sorry.
In response to her enquiry, Rebecca was invited to a Teams Call with PC “A” of the Metropolitan Police who, to her shock, informed Rebecca that Andrew had in February 2023 been arrested by Thames Valley Police and charged with rape.
This chilling information was, in fact, completely untrue, but Rebecca, distressed and confused, confronted Andrew about it. He honestly told her that he had no knowledge of this heinous crime; but what was Rebecca to make of his denial, for would a predator not say exactly the same thing?
Rebecca then contacted PC “A” again and queried whether the ‘intelligence’ provided could be wrong. She received an unsympathetic response, with PC “A” not only urging Rebecca to immediately cease contact with Andrew – but in fact threatening Rebecca with action for having herself disclosed the information to Andrew.
Andrew was outraged that that he had been ‘slandered’ in this way, and that his relationship with his partner had been damaged, and submitted a complaint to the Professional Standards Department of Thames Valley Police (the Force from which the erroneous information was said to have originated). Several months later, Andrew received a response stating:
“I can confirm that a potential crime had been reported to Thames Valley Police. It was recorded correctly in accordance with National Crime Recording Standards. An investigation took place but it was concluded at an early stage that there was no evidence of a crime being committed. Thames Valley Police records correctly reflect this and correctly reflect that you were not arrested or charged.
The incorrect data displayed on the Police National Database (PND) was obtained electronically from the Thames Valley Police crime recording database. This is an automatic process that would have taken place sometime after the crime report was updated, I cannot determine the exact date but I am satisfied it would have been within a short period of time. It has been identified that there was an error in the mapping of the data relating to you and the PND, which resulted in a digital error with your data. Your data has been corrected.
The PND record made available to me at the time of your complaint does not show that you were arrested, I believe there was sufficient information in the PND record to contradict the incorrect outcome that was displayed, and therefore would have expected further enquiries and clarification to have been sought by the Metropolitan Police.
Once again, on behalf of Thames Valley Police I offer my unreserved apology, I recognise the upset, stress and uncertainty this matter has brought you.”
When Andrew told me what had happened to him, I was more than happy to accept his instructions to pursue a claim for compensation for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 against Thames Valley Police.
Following investigation, the Police responded to the claim confirming that in February 2023, a complaint was made against Andrew that he had ‘spiked’ a woman’s drink in a bar. Officers checked the details of the complaint and ascertained that my client had not committed any crime. It was so straightforward that they were even able to close the investigation without the necessity of involving Andrew himself. He had been neither arrested nor charged for any offence.
The fact of the investigation and its outcome – “no crime” – were then transmitted by Thames Valley Police to the Police National Database (PND); unfortunately when the record was transmitted to the Database an error was made, such that the PND erroneously showed that a charge of rape had been laid or summons issued against Andrew. That grossly incorrect information had then been passed on by the Met to Rebecca.
It is also worthy of note here that the incorrect PND entry did not say that Andrew had been arrested – that was something which the Met had evidently ‘surmised’ themselves and then told to Rebecca, on the back of the incorrect recording of the rape charge. Thus did one error lead to another, playing havoc with innocent lives.
Andrew was deeply traumatised by these events, as would be any innocent person stigmatised by an accusation of rape – an accusation apparently ‘officially’ endorsed by the Police; he found the incident playing on his mind all the time and suffered sleep disturbance to such an extent that his GP had to prescribe him with medication. His appetite and concentration were affected. Andrew also, naturally, began to feel uncomfortable about being around other people; he did not know who else had been told about the allegations, and did not want to see any of Rebecca’s friends because of this. His trust in the Police was deeply, and understandably, shaken by these events.
Thankfully, Andrew’s relationship with Rebecca survived, and Thames Valley Police, having admitted their error, have rectified the Police National Database to ensure Andrew’s name is no longer besmirched and, following my intervention, have recently agreed to pay him £10,000 compensation plus his legal costs.
The intentions behind the “Clare’s Law” system are certainly admirable – but those who have the “right to ask” should also have the right to expect that the answers they receive are completely accurate, whilst those whose personal data is in the hands of the Police, must have the right to know that it is not being corrupted by egregious mistakes.
The names of my client and his partner have been changed.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.