Mr and Mrs Richards resided at their Yorkshire home with their teenage son and daughter; at the time of these events, the Richards’ son Harry had just turned 18 and was completing his A-levels.
All of the Richards family were of entirely good character and in fact Mr Richards was himself a long-serving Police Officer.
In July 2019 South Yorkshire Police Officers executed a search warrant at the family’s home in respect of a criminal investigation. Mr Richards returned home to find several Police Officers in his house, busy removing computers, mobile phones, laptops and hard drives in clear plastic bags. All of this activity was taking place in full view of their neighbours and Mrs Richards was distraught.
The level of Police intrusion at the time of the search was such that the Richards’ daughter had her bedroom and wardrobe searched and the Police confiscated her laptop, which had been issued by her school and was needed for her studies. It transpired that the Police were carrying out the search on the basis of information suggesting that Harry Richards had, when he was 17, downloaded what was allegedly an indecent image of a child; Harry later explained to his parents that this had occurred when he had naively clicked on a link sent to him in a message on the social media platform Instagram.
The family was in shock.
The warrant which the Officers provided to my client at the time of the search contained an incorrect address in that on the warrant the address was described as ‘12 Evergreen Road’ whereas the correct address of the family’s home was 12 Evergreen Way.
Almost a year later, in June 2020, one of the Defendant’s Officers sent an email to the family email address stating that Harry would face no further action in relation to the investigation. That email contained the following passages-
“I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the investigation into the Possession of Indecent Images of Children for which you have been involved in.
After reviewing all material, I have spoken at length to Detective Inspector M… who has agreed that it is not in the public interest to proceed with this matter.
I will take this opportunity to remind you of the legislation surrounding Indecent Images of Children, the law states that a person under the age of 18 is to be recognized as a child for such offences. Such an image was located on your mobile phone and therefore, this phone cannot be returned to you. I am asking you to disclaim any ownership. I will approach our legal services to apply to the courts for a destruction order to be made.”
The Richards were overjoyed that this matter had now been resolved, and that Harry would now be able to fully put it behind him and pursue his planned career in the Armed Forces. The lengthy investigation had evidently shown the truth of Harry’s account i.e that this was material he had illadvisedly clicked on once without soliciting it, and that upon all of his hard drives and other computer technology, there was absolutely nothing else of this nature.
However, relief turned to dismay only a few weeks later when Officers from South Yorkshire Police reattended at their home and informed the family that a letter intended for Harry, containing materially the same information as the email quoted above, had been sent to an “incorrect address”.
The Richards were naturally concerned for their safety following this Data Breach given the inflammatory nature of the offence and the risk of vigilante violence and/or social stigma notwithstanding the decision not to bring any criminal charges.
The Officers stated that they would perform a risk assessment relating to the Richards’ home and social media generally, and that a priority tag would be placed on any calls to the Police from the family.
Mr Richards was warned to be vigilant and to be wary of strangers coming to the house, or of unknown vehicles parked outside.
Following the Data Breach and the Police’s safeguarding advice, the Richards all felt anxious and unsafe, fearing that the contents of the misaddressed letter would expose the family to harm. They fitted a security alarm to their property, but that could not provide much comfort.
My clients’ subsequent complaint regarding these matters was upheld by South Yorkshire Police who accepted that one of their Detective Constables had made an ‘error’ when inputting the family’s address into the warrant and that “Clearly the information on the warrant should have been checked…prior to it being sworn out”.
The complaint response further stated that the Police had in fact received a phone call from a third party “Who had opened the [misaddressed] letter not realising it was for him. On realising the serious content of the letter, the resident contacted [South Yorkshire Police] using the details provided on the letter…an incident log was not created in respect of this”.
This information naturally heightened the concern of the Richards family as it was now clear that the misaddressed letter had indeed been delivered to a different residential address, presumably one in the local area, for there was indeed an ‘Evergreen Road’ nearby as well as ‘Evergreen Way’, and it had evidently been read by at least one person living there, who was concerned enough by its contents to contact the Police.
The Richards had no way of knowing how far this highly confidential information had been spread.
The tone of the complaint response conveyed to the Richards family that South Yorkshire Police did not seem to care very much for what they had done, as the Police offered only a very lukewarm apology for the poor ‘level of service provided’; a typically passive-aggressive corporate response from the Police.
Mrs Richards felt that the whole family had been ‘looked down on like scum’ at the time of the Police raid upon their house, and that this attitude had been maintained in the treatment they had received since then.
In light of the above all three of my clients had a claim against South Yorkshire Police under the Data Protection Act, and Mr and Mrs Richards (as the owners of the premises) had a claim for trespass to land against the Police in that the Officers had entered and searched the house under a warrant bearing an incorrect address. That error undeniably invalidated the search warrant.
South Yorkshire Police’s careless error in regards to the misdescription of my clients’ home address – twice perpetuated in the circumstances set out above – represented a gross and reckless abuse of power which had significant adverse consequences upon the entire family – all of whom suffered negative psychological reactions with symptoms of anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance. The family feared not only for their physical safety but for their general reputation and career prospects in regards to the ‘leaking’ of this highly sensitive and confidential information.
Indeed, the family’s distress and anxiety was such that Mr and Mrs Richards made the heartbreaking decision to sell the house in which they and their family had placed several decades of financial and emotional investment and relocate to a new area, because they could no longer feel safe at that address.
Despite the fact that my clients’ initial complaint had been upheld, when I presented claims for damages on behalf of the family, South Yorkshire Police at first offered only ‘nominal’ damages for trespass under the misaddressed warrant and refused to admit liability for the data breach and hence it was necessary to issue and serve civil Court proceedings against the Chief Constable.
I am pleased to confirm that after dismissing South Yorkshire Police’s initial offer of settlement of only £250, concluded settlement on behalf of Harry and his parents for total damages of almost £25,000.
The name of my client has been changed.
