ACPO Criminal Records Office
Funding from PNC Charges
Business Case
Author:
Det/Supt Gary Linton
ACPO Criminal Records Office
Version: 1.0
Owner:
A/DCC Adrian McAllister
Dated: 30th October 2006
Customer:
CC Peter Neyroud
Page 1 of 48
Contents
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................3
2
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................5
3
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................7
4
ACPO CRIMINAL RECORDS OFFICE ...............................................................................................................8
5
GOVERNANCE......................................................................................................................................................11
6
LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................................12
7
FUNDING ................................................................................................................................................................13
7.2
ACRO ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS ..................................................................................................................14
8
THE BUSINESS BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................15
8.2
MICROFICHE ......................................................................................................................................................15
8.3
SUBJECT ACCESS ...............................................................................................................................................15
8.4
EXCEPTIONAL CASE PROCEDURE.......................................................................................................................15
8.5
EXCHANGE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS WITHIN THE EU .........................................................................................15
8.6
FORENSIC INTEGRATION STRATEGY (FIS) .........................................................................................................16
8.7
DIRECT SAVINGS THROUGH SPEEDIER INVESTIGATIONS AND QUICKER APPEHENSION OF OFFENDERS ..........17
8.8
EARLY ELIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT AND BETTER TREATMENT OF SUSPECTS .............................................18
8.9
GREATER VICTIM REASSURANCE ......................................................................................................................18
8.10 AN ABILITY TO RESPOND TO LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY.............................................................18
8.11 IMPROVING SYSTEM EFFICIENCY AND CO-ORDINATION OF TECHNICAL CHANGES............................................19
8.12 EXPERTISE TO NEGOTIATE WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON BEHALF OF ACPO AND GOVERNMENT............................19
8.13 ABILITY TO DEAL WITH EMERGING ISSUES EFFECTIVELY AND REMOVE OBSTACLES TO PROGRESS .................19
9
STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT AND THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY ............................................................20
10
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY .................................................................................................................21
10.1 24/7 SUPPORT AND WEBSITES............................................................................................................................21
11
BUSINESS AREAS .............................................................................................................................................22
11.1 RETENTION GUIDELINES AND STEP MODEL.......................................................................................................22
11.2 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER NEGOTIATIONS..................................................................................................22
11.3 INFORMATION TRIBUNAL...................................................................................................................................23
11.4 POLICE INFORMATION ACCESS PANEL (PIAP)...................................................................................................24
11.5 VIOLENT AND SEX OFFENDER REGISTER (VISOR), DATA OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS COMMITTEE (DOAC) .....24
11.6 EXCEPTIONAL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND PNC RECORDS........................25
11.7 UKCA - FOR THE EXCHANGE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS (UKCA – ECR).............................................................26
11.8 SUBJECT ACCESS ...............................................................................................................................................28
11.9 BRC MICROFICHE..............................................................................................................................................29
11.10
BRC ACQUITTALS .........................................................................................................................................31
11.11
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS AND DATA PROVISION ....................................................................................32
11.12
FORENSIC INTEGRATION STRATEGY (FIS) AND DNA OPERATIONS GROUP ...................................................32
11.13
MOPI AND IMPACT......................................................................................................................................34
11.14
CRB LINKS ....................................................................................................................................................34
11.15
NON-POLICE AGENCIES AND FOREIGN NATIONAL CRIMINALS ......................................................................35
12
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................................................37
12.1 APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS.........................................................................38
12.2 APPENDIX 2 - PREDICTED PNC CHARGE INCREASES .........................................................................................43
12.3 APPENDIX 3 – BUSINESS BENEFITS SUMMARY...................................................................................................46
12.4 APPENDIX 4 - STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................47
Page 2 of 48
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1.1
On 03 May 2006, ACPO Cabinet approved the creation of an ACPO Criminal
Records Office (ACRO). It was agreed that initially it would be funded by contributions
from police forces and the Home Office. This is vital work, which has led to a
significant increase in detections, in many cases against serious crime, which is
documented in Section 8 of this detailed business case.
1.1.2
Currently, ACRO costs less than £0.5m per annum but is in need of more staff, a
dedicated PNC Bureau and larger premises. Suitably sized premises will allow for
bureau expansion, which will be required over the next two years, to cater for
increased work in several business areas. It will also prepare the ground for the
transfer of some National Identification Service (NIS) functions, particularly the removal
of the microfiche library. To do so provides a cost effective approach with a single
initiative, concerning Subject Access, saving more in cashable terms than the cost of
the ACRO provision to forces.
1.1.3
The business areas, which are covered by the work, achieve a number of vital
components for policing, which fall into four broad categories:
•
Detection of crime by linking arrestees through biometrics to crime scenes
•
Protection of the public from dangerous offenders by greater PNC use
•
Significant savings by better record management
•
Greater public assurance through improved governance of records
1.1.4
ACRO is now in the process of constructing the appropriate capability to manage
and resource the relevant work streams. This includes; the implementation of the
ACPO Retention Guidelines (which replaced the ACPO weeding Rules), maintaining
links between records and biometric samples to maximise crime detections, the
maintenance of an ‘Exceptional Case Procedure’ for Chief Officers dealing with
retention issues, managing the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal
Records (UKCA-ECR) across the European Union, resolving and rationalising millions
of old microfiche records, and improving Subject Access arrangements.
1.1.5
A 1990 Home Affairs Committee Report recommended the provision of adequate
funding to ensure that the whole of the microfiche library be transferred on to the PNC
by the end of 1994 at the latest, but that has not yet happened. ACRO who have now
examined this area are able to evidence, following a survey of all forces in England &
Wales, that the Microfiche Library does not require the significant costs of staffing 24
hours a day. The savings this generates will pay for the digitisation of the library onto
the PNC. The ACRO proposal is to take ownership of the library and manage that
process over a three to five year period.
1.1.6
Overall, ACRO enables ACPO to move from a position of ‘event driven’ initiatives in
relation to record management to a forward thinking problem solving approach. This is
a separate and distinct requirement, which is not catered for by the IMPACT and MoPI
work or plans to create a Police National Database.
1.1.7
The access to PNC data by non-police users, which has been influenced by an
Information Tribunal and ongoing demands from the Information Commissioner, has
wide implications for the police service. To get the balance right and ensure efficient
working between agencies ACRO are working with more than 40 non-police
organisations to build a better arrangement. Some of these agencies such as the IND
and Prison Service are significant stakeholders, where implications exist in relation to
Foreign National Prisoners. The opportunities for improving public safety and further
Page 3 of 48
crime detections are already well known in these areas.
1.1.8
ACRO also ensure that efficiencies on a national scale are achieved in respect of
DNA sampling and have recently been tasked by the Prime Minister’s Office to do
further work in this area through Forensic Science and Pathology Unit.
1.1.9
The Police of England & Wales now sample and record details of all persons who
have come into police custody for a recordable offence. This has huge implications for
Human Rights issues, Subject Access arrangements, VISA applications and
Employment Vetting. ACRO are working closely in these areas to ascertain the many
benefits this approach now brings to policing, protecting the public and apprehending
dangerous criminals. It can only do so by ensuring that it has the appropriate
resources to meet the demands over the next five years.
1.1.10
It is sensible to fund this work from the revenue generated by the very data it
currently manages. This revenue forms part of the PNC charge, which is attributed to
police forces and all non-police users of the PNC.
1.1.11
There are a significant number of non-police users of PNC, all of whom pay a levy
for access, as do police forces. The ACPO lead for PNC, DCC John Feavyour, has
written to the Director of Finance at PITO requesting that £1.5m be included in this
budget area to fund the future ACRO requirement on an annual basis from April 2007.
This equates to a 5% increase of the PNC charge to forces and an increased levy to
non-police users. It is acknowledged that other demands are also being placed upon
this charge which lifts the police increase for 2007 to 23%. Whilst some of these areas
are essential, others may be viewed as less than essential. The work of ACRO
however should be seen as forming part of the essential category.
1.1.12
This action has been agreed in principle by PITO and the Home Office and has the
support of the ACPO President and several ACPO leads in the relevant business
areas.
1.1.13
The Home Office is also in the process of implementing a plan to close the National
Identification Service (the current holders of the microfiche library) during 2007. Once
complete, they want to transfer remaining business areas over to ACRO together with
a budget of around £2m plus a further £2m in respect of Subject Access if that work is
also undertaken. This will help fund the additional transferred work but does not
remove the requirement for the £1.5m funding from PNC charges.
1.1.14
Few can believe the effectiveness and achievements of the small ACRO office until
they see the evidence. ACRO have put in place a system and business processes in
months, where others have previously taken years. A recent example is the UK
Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Convictions across Europe. Once again
this has now highlighted and filled the significant gap that existed concerning our
knowledge of serious and dangerous offenders residing in the UK. The significant
value ACRO brings to several ACPO portfolios is evident from an extract of a
stakeholder survey relating to the work at Appendix 1.
1.1.15
In summary ACRO manages several vital business areas for ACPO linked to
criminal records. The work now needs to be firmly established as a central ACPO
police structure, which Hampshire Constabulary are happy to support in their force
area, once the funding is secured. The revenue generated by the data use is the
preferred way to find the necessary funds which would then see an effective
development of several linked areas of business.
Page 4 of 48
2
INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
ACRO is now in the process of constructing the appropriate capability to manage
and resource the relevant work streams, which include;
•
implementation of the ACPO Retention Guidelines (which replaced the
ACPO weeding Rules),
•
negotiating and facilitating PNC access arrangements with a large number of
non-police agencies
•
maintaining links between records and biometric samples to maximise crime
detections
•
maintenance of an ‘Exceptional Case Procedure’ for Chief Officers dealing
with retention issues
•
exchange of convictions across the European Union
•
management and rationalisation of millions of old microfiche records
•
improving Subject Access arrangements
2.1.2
These are just a few examples and the capability will need to cater for future
expansion and perhaps accommodate the national microfiche library.
2.1.3
ACPO needs to be able to demonstrate a robust and rigorous approach to the
management of its data, particularly that held on PNC. ACRO will enable the careful
management of police data; minimise the risk of misuse by non-police users; offer
greater transparency and secure public confidence. This is evidenced in each of the
business areas of the report and in more detail in Section 8.
2.1.4
There are a significant number of non-police users of PNC, all of whom pay a fee
per check. Police users all pay a levy for unlimited access, determined by the size of
the police force. The ACPO lead for PNC has written to the Director of Finance at
PITO requesting that £1.5m be included in this budget area to fund ACRO. This action
has been agreed in principle by PITO and the Home Office.
2.1.5
The Home Office is in the process of implementing a plan to review the National
Identification Service (NIS) during 2007 removing significant amounts of business and
freeing up physical space. Once complete, they want to transfer remaining business
areas to ACRO together with a budget of around £2m plus a further £2m in respect of
Subject Access if that work is also undertaken.
2.1.6
Initially, the ACRO staffing requirement is likely to be in the order of 35 to 50
employees rising to about 100 over a three to five year period. Suitable premises are
required to allow for such expansion, and in line with the Gershon Review1 it is
recommended that the ACRO office is located outside of London.
2.1.7
The early work prior to the creation of ACRO is already well known for its strong
links to Hampshire Constabulary who are happy to continue to host ACRO against
secured funding. Geographically this has proved to be an ideal location which is
sufficiently close to key London offices, close to national transport infrastructure and
benefits from reduced costs.
2.1.8
The formation of ACRO provides a full time effective resource that can support the
police service across a range of issues linked to criminal records. The issues are
numerous, as reflected in the content of this paper and importantly, in terms of policing,
need linking in a coherent way to maximise policing benefits including crime detections
and increased public safety.
1 Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency - Releasing resources to the front line
Page 5 of 48
2.1.9
The focus of the work is about functional aspects of criminal records and not about
managing police intelligence. A wide interpretation of criminal records however is
important and should include DNA and fingerprint information in this context. The
overlap with intelligence management is also significant and this business case
acknowledges the need for ACRO to engage with IMPACT and Bichard proposals. In
this area ACRO are providing support to the implementation team tasked with
supporting the Review, Retention and Disposal section of MoPI.
2.1.10
Ultimately, the work of ACRO involves focusing upon the operational use of criminal
records to maximise crime detections, improve National Security and increase public
protection and confidence in the police service. Identifying business benefits has also
remained a core aspect of the work for a number of reasons. Clear evidence of the
tangible benefits has encouraged police service engagement with new legislation, such
as the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It has
also helped others, including the Courts and Parliament, to consider the balancing
exercise, which exists between the operational law enforcement requirement and
associated Data Protection and Human Rights considerations linked to personal data.
2.1.11
The team have set extremely high standards both in terms of service and delivery.
This reputation has been reflected in a stakeholder survey that included a wide array of
partner organisations, as well as all police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland.
Page 6 of 48
3
BACKGROUND
3.1.1
The DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project was established to devise a system that
enables the retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints in accordance with PACE as
amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Once established, it was also
recognised that there was a need to have a team committed to oversee the
implementation of Sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA). The
project was fully funded by the Home Office, and operated under the ACPO badge.
3.1.2
One of the Deliverables identified within the original Project Initiation Document was
to produce a “State of the Nation” report, setting out how forces were structured to
cope with the impending legislation. The CJA enabled police forces to take and retain
fingerprints and DNA samples from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and
detained at a police station. Those persons where No Further Action is taken, pre
charge, are known as ‘CJ Arrestees’.
3.1.3
One of the main aims was to determine the number of additional persons who would
be processed nationally. To achieve this it was necessary to ascertain the number of
persons arrested in each force area, the numbers judicially processed, and therefore
establish the numbers who were the subject of No Further Action. This gave a clear
indication as to the extra requirement being imposed on each force by the CJA.
3.1.4
Each of the 43 forces within England and Wales were visited. This led to an
appreciation of the systems in place for custody processing, and any plans for
responding to the requirement to sample ‘CJ Arrestees’.
3.1.5
Opportunities were recognised to identify best practice across the country, and as
the knowledge of the project officers grew, they were able to impart that knowledge to
forces. In addition the project officers identified problems surrounding the ability of
PITO to carry out the necessary technical changes to PNC, and the limitations of the
NSPIS Custody system. It became apparent that these were the greatest concerns to
forces who would find difficulty in coping with the requirements of the CJA, and would
cause delays in implementation.
3.1.6
Whilst this work was ongoing issues began to emerge which created the necessity
for more areas of work to be addressed. There were significant problems with the high
numbers of Requests For Change to PNC having been submitted but not yet
addressed. There were issues over the late arrival of NSPIS Custody and its inability to
fully meet the requirements of the CJA.
Page 7 of 48
4
ACPO CRIMINAL RECORDS OFFICE
4.1.1
The effective management of criminal records and ensuring the processes are
transparent, well governed and instill public confidence is the key driver for a central
police operational resource underpinning the relevant business areas. Historically, the
police service has not engaged with this area as well as it might and as a consequence
it has been fertile ground to make some really positive changes for the benefit of
policing.
4.1.2
ACRO is also about creating opportunities, which are far more likely to arise when
approached from an overarching business perspective. Several examples are
discussed in detail in this report, where the concept ensures such changes remain
linked to operational benefits. ACRO work streams benefit from the resources,
structures and methodology of the successful DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project
which includes;
•
Communication Strategy
•
Business expertise
•
Knowledge library
•
Problem solving methodology
•
Links with HMIC and PSU
•
Strong stakeholder buy-in. (Police and non-police)
4.1.3
Whilst those charged with providing the technical solutions have undertaken sterling
work in relation to providing IT platforms, the operational requirements have not always
enjoyed a high priority. This has resulted in large gaps relating to the management of
such records in some areas, examples include;
•
Missed crime detection opportunities (~32,000 load failures)
•
Unresolved microfiche library of over 5 Million records
•
A rise in public complaints (IC Figures / survey)
•
Inefficient business processes (Subject Access)
•
Missed savings opportunities (Multiple sampling)
•
Poor linking to forensic samples (As above)
•
Poor data sharing agreements (HMP, IND)
•
Mismatch between legislation and systems (RFC Process)
4.1.4
In terms of productivity and cost savings, tackling and resolving such issues is
highly beneficial and is discussed in more detail at Section 8 of this report.
4.1.5
The ACRO methodology to achieve this seeks to expand the existing resource and
in doing so build the capacity to effectively deal with related issues, which will attract
further substantial savings and improved crime detection. It will also enable the police
to be much better placed to link with key partners such as the Immigration and Prison
Services with obvious operational benefits for all services including better identification
of serious offenders.
4.1.6
The structure to achieve this takes part of the existing model and then supports that
with a dedicated PNC Bureau. The Bureau, which is designed to expand to meet
business needs relating to greater partner engagement, with IND for example, will also
provide a general resource for certain aspects of NIS work that may be transferred
across to ACRO in 2007.
4.1.7
The concept of ACRO is to provide a resource which deals with relevant issues
through the use of Business Development Officers (BDO), sitting within a local
management and administrative framework all underpinned with its own PNC Bureau
Page 8 of 48
and strong links to relevant stakeholders. The Governance is provided by a suitably
chaired ACPO Board.
4.1.8
Typically, the BDO role involves the management of key work streams, which
require a broad and deep understanding of operational police requirements together
with the ability to engage with senior stakeholders, whilst managing successful
outcomes.
4.1.9
Current examples include working with all the non-police agencies to secure
appropriate business arrangements for access to PNC data, drafting and introducing
the new Retention Guidelines for PNC data, securing, by working with PITO, the
technical changes and the creation and management of a Police Information Access
Panel (PIAP).
4.1.10
It also includes introducing new business processes to make more effective use of
DNA records, in the context of police investigations. These are just some of a range of
work streams, which can be effectively undertaken by this methodology, which relies
upon robust links to the relevant ACPO portfolio holders.
4.1.11
Additional roles are then added, which cater for relevant analytical and statistical
gathering work, that supports the data gathering requirements to inform business
development and satisfy Parliamentary scrutiny. Other roles deal with bespoke areas
such as the Exceptional Case Procedure for the removal of DNA, fingerprints and
associated PNC records.
4.1.12
An office is included to manage the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of
Criminal Records (UKCA-ECR), which has dedicated management and a small team of
staff. This office would also make considerable use of the dedicated PNC Bureau.
4.1.13
One of the real benefits of the model is that it provides a focal point that draws on
policing resources across the UK. For example in relation to the EU exchange work,
strong links have been formed with Interpol and with the International Law Enforcement
Fingerprint Bureau based at NSY for the exchange of fingerprints.
4.1.14
Developing the exchange of DNA across the EU also forms part of the work which is
managed by the DNA Operations Group. The Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
also task ACPO in this area.
4.1.15
In relation to the PNC changes, ACRO perform a key role with the ACPO P4G. The
same is true in relation to forensic samples and the ACPO chaired Forensic Science
Committee as well as the DNA Operations Group for which ACRO provide the
secretarial function.
4.1.16
As a note of caution it would be erroneous to assume that the IMPACT work and the
aspirations towards a Police National Database (PND) by 2010 will deal with these
issues. It will be important that this work advises the development of the PND and
ACRO have already made significant contributions to areas of MoPI. This is a further
important benefit to having ACRO in place which is discussed in more detail in Section
11.13 of this report.
Page 9 of 48
4.1.17
ACPO CRIMINAL RECORDS OFFICE
Governance
ACRO Board – Chaired by A/DCC Adrian McAllister
Membership includes:
•
Police Service Practitioners including
•
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Scotland and Northern Ireland
Constabulary (HMIC)
•
HO National DNA Database Custodian
•
Police Standards Unit (PSU)
•
Home Office Police Information
•
Police Information Technology
Communication and Technology Unit
Organisation (PITO)
•
Business Practitioners
•
HO National DNA Database Custodian
•
IDENT 1
•
National Identification Service(NIS)
•
Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
•
Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)
(FSPU)
Office
ACRO
Structure
Manager
Not yet
in place
Deputy
Manager
Business
Business
Business
UKCA – ECR
Development
Development
Benefits
Exceptional
Office
Bureau
Manager
Officer
Officer
Officer
Case Advisor
Manager
Manager
EU
PNC Operator
Office Clerk
Bureau x
Conviction
12 / 15 staff
Co-ordinator
Stakeholder
•
Police Forces of England/Wales/Scotland and
•
National DNA Database Custodian
Engagement
PSNI
•
IDENT1
•
Home Office departments including FSPU,
•
Data Protection Officers
PLPU, PICTU, PSU, HMIC
•
FOI Group
•
ICO
•
ACPO Portfolios Forensics / Records /
•
Force Disclosure Units
Data Protection / Disclosure / PNC /
•
UK Scientific Support Managers
IMPACT / MoPI / and associated sub
•
Professional Standards Units
committees for Fingerprints / DNA
•
CRB
•
All non-police PNC users including
DfES, IND, HMPS
Page 10 of 48
5
GOVERNANCE
5.1.1
The concept of ACRO needs to ensure that appropriate and robust governance
arrangements are in place. ACRO support the work of the ACPO portfolio holders for
Records and Disclosure, PNC, Data Protection and Forensic Science.
5.1.2
One of the obvious benefits, which emerged from the earlier project work, is the
linking of what were previously separate business areas. One example would be the
relationship between criminal record management and forensic sampling.
5.1.3
The previous governance arrangements relating to what has now become a core
aspect of the ACRO work reflect the overarching requirements. A Board has been
created, currently chaired by the holder of the ACPO Recording and Disclosure of
Convictions Portfolio. Membership of the board has been made up of representatives
of forensic practitioners, from the police, the Home Office, PITO, PSU, HMIC and
police representatives from PSNI and SCRO. It has also provided a forum where other
interested stakeholders such as the CRB could engage.
5.1.4
A number of other governance structures have also been able to influence the work
and include for example, the DNA Operations Group, the Forensic Science Committee,
the National Fingerprint Board, ACPO P4G and the Data Protection portfolio.
5.1.5
The creation of ACRO has provided an opportunity to review the governance
arrangements and ACPO stakeholders are keen to continue with the current model,
whilst making suitable adjustments to the membership of the board.
5.1.6
Some areas of ACRO business, such as the UKCA for the Exchange of Criminal
Records work and aspects of the forensic work have existing and separate funding
streams. In acknowledgement of this current arrangement such stakeholders are able
to ensure that their interests are secured through the governance board.
Page 11 of 48
6
LOCATION
6.1.1
It is important that ACRO is well situated to deliver on the services it will provide. Sir
Peter Gershon’s Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency - Releasing resources
to the front line, identified that moving posts away from London can deliver efficiency
gains through lower property costs, reduced staff turnover and more effective service
delivery.
6.1.2
This approach is also supported by Sir Michael Lyons’ Independent Review of
Public Sector Relocation - Shaping the Pattern of Government Services. The report
makes the case for sharper incentives to encourage departments to seek the benefits
of locations out of London. This is exemplified by the Government’s urgency to
relocate 20,000 posts away from London by 2010.
6.1.3
ACPO acknowledge that for practical reasons it is sensible to link national resources
into existing police force infrastructures. The force is then able to provide support for
administration of finance, staff, premises, IT and development against an agreed
funding arrangement.
6.1.4
ACRO are currently hosted by Hampshire Constabulary, and negotiations are
ongoing with ACPO and Hampshire Police Authority to formally agree this arrangement
on a permanent footing.
6.1.5
By continuing to locate ACRO in Hampshire, the needs to deliver efficiency gains
are satisfied. At the same time its proximity to London allows easy travel connections
to attend meetings at HO, ACPO, PITO etc. Often the journey time is less than for
those who live and work in London.
Page 12 of 48
7
FUNDING
7.1.1
Currently, ACRO costs less than £0.5m per annum but is in need of more staff, a
dedicated PNC Bureau and larger premises. A suitably sized premises will allow for
bureau expansion, which will be required over the next two years, to cater for
increased work in several business areas. It will also prepare the ground for the
transfer of some NIS functions and particularly the removal of the microfiche library.
7.1.2
The establishment of ACRO, sufficiently resourced to deal with the issues contained
within this report will cost £1.5m per annum. A breakdown of these costs is shown
below.
7.1.3
The ACPO Portfolio Leads for Records and Disclosure, PNC, Data Protection and
Forensic Science believe that it is appropriate to fund ACRO by increasing the PNC
levy for police forces and the transaction fee paid by the significant number of non-
police users who access PNC. The predicted PNC charge increases including the
£1.5m ACRO requirement can be found at Appendix 2 and are broken down by
organisation.
7.1.4
DCC John Feavyour (PNC Portfolio) has written to the Director of Finance at PITO,
requesting that funds be made available from the income generated by these charges,
to support ACRO on an annual basis from April 2007.
7.1.5
This report refers to previous project work that provided much of the impetus to
create ACRO. Funding to date has been by the Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
(FSPU) via the DNA Expansion Programme. Such is the volume of ACRO work related
to that area of business, FSPU have continued to inject funds in support of relevant
work streams.
7.1.6
It will be necessary to scale up the work by providing a central PNC bureau
underpinning the various business areas covered by ACRO. To do so provides a cost
effective approach, with a single initiative concerning Subject Access, saving more in
cashable terms than the cost of the provision to forces. It is sensible to fund this work
from the revenue generated by the very data it currently manages. This revenue forms
part of the PNC charge, which is attributed to police forces and non-police users of
PNC.
7.1.7
A separate, albeit small funding stream is also provided in respect of the UKCA
work which has enabled the establishment of the office. This funding is provided by
the HO via the PLPU. This will need to increase to meet the business needs during
2007/08 and will be subject to a separate business case.
Page 13 of 48
7.2
ACRO Estimated Annual Costs
Premises
•
Capacity
•
Location
£300,000
•
Lease arrangements
•
Under-writing risks and future-proof arrangements
Security & Facilities
•
Facilities Manager
£350,000
•
Office Security
•
Specialist storage
Staff
•
ACRO & UKCA
£600,000
•
Existing team 11 + Bureau 13 + 1 (25)
Equipment
•
Workstation
25k (75k / 3yr)
•
General equipment
10k (30k / 3yr)
£55,000
•
Admin/phones etc
20k
Business Costs
•
Travel 25k
•
Expenses
20k
•
Overtime
30k
•
PNC Costs
(not paying)
£195,000
•
Other IT licences
5k
•
Development work
75k
•
Contingency
15k
•
Recruitment/Training
10k
•
Miscellaneous
10k
TOTAL
£1,500,000
Potential new business
Microfiche
With funding
•
Room for storage
•
Room for scanning
Subject Access
With £2m Revenue
•
Option to increase costs
•
Manage centrally and possibly return a post to each force
•
Option to include NDNAD
Page 14 of 48
8
THE BUSINESS BENEFITS
8.1.1
ACRO will deliver significant business benefits to the police service. These include
cashable savings in respect of the microfiche library and Subject Access process and
operational benefits in relation to the Exceptional Case Procedure, the UK Central
Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records and Forensic Integration Strategy.
There are also a number of additional efficiency gains which are detailed below.
8.2
Microfiche
8.2.1
In support of a Home Office review of the NIS, ACRO have been invited to develop
a radical new approach to rationalise the historic records held on microfiche at New
Scotland Yard. Supported by the police forces of England and Wales, ACRO have the
opportunity to save £millions by reducing routine access to the microfiche library from
the existing 24/7 arrangement to an office hours service. With the savings, there is
also the potential to better manage the storage, maintenance and disclosure of the
historic records.
8.3
Subject Access
8.3.1
ACRO recognise that there is the potential to reduce the costs incurred by each
police force if the current Subject Access process is refined and a centralised web
based approach developed. Alternatively, the Subject Access fee could be significantly
reduced which would enjoy support from the Information Commissioner who holds the
belief that the process should be offered with no charge.
8.4
Exceptional Case Procedure
8.4.1
The Exceptional Case Procedure has significantly improved the national
consistency of decision making in respect of police records. The Exceptional Case
Advisor has become the national expert in this field and continues to reassure the
public that appropriate safeguards are in place and minimises the likelihood of litigation
against the police service.
8.5
Exchange of Criminal Records within the EU
8.5.1
ACPO successfully bid to become the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of
Criminal Records (UKCA-ECR) between EU member states. Now an integral part of
ACRO, the work has already identified significant benefits to both national and
international policing. These include;
• The exchange of criminal records will enable patterns of criminality to be
more readily identified, facilitating the appropriate operational response.
People smuggling, international paedophilia, drug trafficking, as well as
terrorist related offences are crimes which are trans-national by nature.
• Courts will be able to take account of a convicted person’s complete offending
history when considering sentencing.
• Having a dedicated Central Authority within the UK has already ensured
greater accuracy in the creation and updating of records. The unit is also
able to ensure consistency in identification of the offender by encouraging the
exchange of fingerprints, (and perhaps later DNA), to prove identity.
• There will be an increased opportunity to identify wanted persons, both in the
UK and those subject of a European Arrest Warrant. This will lead to the
Page 15 of 48
apprehension of offenders denying them the opportunity to commit further,
often serious crime.
• The ability to identify offenders and emerging offending patterns, such as
Fourniret2 who commit serious crime in one country and who later move to,
and continue to commit crime in another country.
• The timely creation of full and accurate conviction information on PNC and
other national databases, such as ViSOR, in support of policing purposes.
• When investigating Terrorism and Organised Crime the police can make
greater use of intelligence markers to trace and monitor suspects.
• Employment disclosure will be more effective due to the increase in numbers
of records being added or updated on PNC.
• Strategies to create full and accurate records of offending will support the
CJIT exchange development programme.
•
Data Sharing Across Government for the purposes of National Security
Vetting
8.6
Forensic Integration Strategy (FIS)
“As a policy maker and not a police officer it has on many occasions been very
helpful to have the advice of the police, in terms of practices and procedures on the
ground.”
Home Office Forensic Science ad Pathology Unit
8.6.1
The Forensic Integration Strategy delivers a number of operational benefits which
have been identified by ACRO. These include increased crime detections, direct police
savings through speedier investigations and greater victim reassurance.
8.6.2
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 creates an environment where the police have the
ability to record all arrest events for recordable offences on PNC. This enables
offenders, such as Ian Huntley, to be linked to outstanding crimes through the arrest
process and patterns of suspected offending to be identified nationally on the PNC.
8.6.3
Taking fingerprints and DNA from persons on arrest for a recordable offence has
expanded the population of both IDENT1 and NDNAD, significantly increasing the
opportunity of matching a crime scene in a speculative search.
8.6.4
Since the introduction of the legislation in April 2004, DNA profiles in respect of over
124,000 people have been added to the NDNAD. More than 2,000 of these persons
have been linked to over 3,000 crime scenes. These crimes include 37 murders, 16
attempted murders, and 90 rapes (ACRO, January 2006). The Home Office estimate
that the introduction of biometric ID cards will bring similar benefits, increasing the
detection of serious crimes by comparing the fingerprints of all outstanding crime
marks held on IDENT1 against fingerprints taken from all citizens.
8.6.5
Home Office statistics identify that the peak age of known offending is 17 for males
and 15 for females3. Over 24,000 under 18s have been arrested, DNA sampled and
added to NDNAD where their DNA has not previously been taken (ACRO, January
2006). The police need to ensure that they retain sufficient information about young
2 Michel FOURNIRET, 63 was arrested for the murder of six French and 1 Belgian girl by Belgian police in 2003. Previously he
had been sentenced for seven years imprisonment for rape and indecent assault on minors in France. It is thought that he may
have murdered up to 40 victims.
3 Home Office Statistical Bulletin Criminal Statistics 2004, 19/05, RDS Office for Criminal Justice Reform, November 2005.
Page 16 of 48
persons from whom DNA has been taken, in recognition that that age group constitutes
the most prolific offending category.
8.7
Direct Savings through Speedier Investigations and Quicker Appehension
of Offenders
8.7.1
The cost benefits associated with improved efficiency requires an understanding of
costs associated with police activity. By drawing upon existing Home Office and ACRO
research, the potential financial benefits of introducing the legislation can be identified.
In addition, there are the unequivocal savings for potential victims of crime.
8.7.2
The average cost to a police force in relation to one burglary dwelling investigation
has been calculated at £240. This relates, merely to police activity4. Further costs to
the Criminal Justice System amounts to a cost of £2,300 per incident. On an annual
and national scale, this adds up to a cost of £3.36m for police investigation, and a total
cost of £2.27b to the government. Any reduction in burglary therefore has the potential
to make significant savings. The same is true across a range of crimes.
8.7.3
Home Office statistics suggest that the average cost of a homicide investigation is
£11,000 relating solely to police activity. The total cost per incident, which takes into
account costs of Prosecution, Court costs, Jury Service, Legal Aid, and the Prison
Service as examples, boosts this figure to a total cost of £1.1m per incident. On an
annual basis, the total costs incurred by all incidents of homicide are set at an average
£12.1m for police investigation, and a total figure of £1.2b for the government.
8.7.4
The following illustrates how DNA enabled the quicker apprehension of a dangerous
offender and directly reduced police activity and costs.
£145,000 Saving in one Rape Enquiry
A “Stranger” rape occurred in the South of England but there was little information in relation to
the offender. Investigators suspected he came from Southampton and as there were no other
reasonable lines of enquiry, decided to carry out DNA intelligence screen in that area, a DNA
profile having been obtained in relation to the suspect.
Prior to this, a male had been arrested for an assault on his partner and his DNA and
fingerprints were taken. He was released without charge once it became clear that she did not
want to pursue a prosecution.
The DNA profile in respect of the arrestee was loaded to the NDNA and matched to the profile
in the rape case. This revealed that the suspect did not live in the Southampton area. The
planned intelligence screen would not therefore have identified the suspect.
A similar case in Portsmouth, which also involved a DNA intelligence screen accrued costs of
around £145,000, before the suspect was identified due to the suspects DNA not being in the
system. It is reasonable to assume that had the suspect in the Southampton case not been in
the system similar expenditure could have taken place.
Cases such as these clearly illustrate the potential savings, which can be realised, particularly
in serious and expensive enquiries, if the business processes are working effectively.
4 Home Office Research Study 217, ‘The Economic and Social Costs of Crime’, 2000, Sam Brand and Richard Price, Research
and Development Directorate.
Page 17 of 48
8.8
Early Elimination of the Innocent and Better Treatment of Suspects
8.8.1
The case below shows that the retention of samples enables the police to quickly
and confidently eliminate suspects saving police costs, protecting the rights of the
innocent improving the public perception of the police service.
£40,000 Saving from early elimination of suspects
Significant savings are realised by DNA and fingerprint sampling persons that have been
arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station.
A DNA profile of a rapist was obtained from a semen sample and loaded to the National DNA
Database.
Two suspects were arrested for the rape but their DNA did not match that from the rape and
both were eliminated immediately. This brought significant financial benefits to the police and
personal benefits to the individuals concerned. It also avoided lengthy detention in police cells
of up to 36 hours or even further remands in custody of innocent individuals.
The police avoided unnecessary interviews, ID parades, medical examinations and Court
appearances. It is estimated that, this activity would have cost around £40,000 of police time.
Additionally there would be a saving from unnecessary work carried out by a series of Criminal
Justice staff and other professionals such as Doctors, by this improved efficiency.
The police in this case were able to remain focused on catching the perpetrator rather than be
distracted with unproductive lines of enquiry.
8.9
Greater Victim Reassurance
8.9.1
The family of the murdered school girl Caroline Dickinson have often expressed
their dismay over the lengthy detention of the wrong suspect by French police until
DNA sampling resolved the issue. The benefit of getting this area right provides for
much better victim reassurance as well as better treatment of suspects, particularly the
innocent.
8.10
An Ability to Respond to Legal and Parliamentary Scrutiny
“In responding to questions in Parliament or in dealing with judicial cases the
information and statistics provided by the team have been extremely valuable and
Ministers have in particular been very grateful for the evidence provided to support
the justification for the extension of police powers to take and retain DNA and
fingerprints”
Mr Eric Downham, Forensic Science & Pathology Unit, Home Office
8.10.1
Business benefits can be used to defend legal and ethical challenges and inform the
future development of legislation. For example, the benefits relating to the Criminal
Justice & Police Act 2001 were used during the 2004 S & Marper Case decided in the
House of Lords. Statistics relating to the implementation of The Criminal Justice Act
2003, especially around the numbers of DNA samples, have also been used to answer
several recent Parliamentary Questions concerning juveniles on the NDNAD and to
brief Home Office Ministers on the success of the legislation (Appendix 3). They have
also been published in journals including Police Review and Criminal Justice
Management journals to articulate the wider benefits to those working in the Criminal
Page 18 of 48
Justice System.
8.10.2
The office of The Prime Minister has also commissioned work by ACRO which has
been used to brief the Prime Minister.
8.11
Improving System Efficiency and Co-ordination of Technical Changes
8.11.1
Identifying the business benefits allows the police service to fully utilise the
opportunities provided by new legislation and policy. They ensure that operational
policing drives the technology requirement and that the service can respond
appropriately to new Home Office initiatives and legislation.
8.11.2
The NDNAD Custodian has submitted a number of change requests to PITO, some
of which aim to improve the ability to provide data to the Home Office. In particular,
one relates to enhancing the interface between PNC and NDNAD which should enable
the delivery of the business benefits relating to DNA more readily.
8.11.3
To ensure the successful delivery of these change requests, ACRO will work closely
with the Custodian continuing to articulate the benefits until the technical changes are
completed.
8.12
Expertise to Negotiate with Stakeholders on behalf of ACPO and
Government
8.12.1
ACRO have a proven ability to negotiate with stakeholders at all levels. The team
have successfully secured technical changes, reviewed and revised current policy and
supported all forces through the change process. This has required negotiation with
numerous stakeholders including, the Information Commissioner, PITO, ACPO,
NDNAD Custodian, IDENT1, NIS, the Scottish Executive, PSNI, CRB, DfES and
several HO departments.
8.13
Ability to Deal with Emerging Issues Effectively and Remove Obstacles to
Progress
8.13.1
The requirement to identify business benefits is not restricted to those derived from
the introduction of new forensic powers and processes. Work is being done to identify
the benefits to be drawn from back record converting (BRC) acquittal records to PNC
and to scan the microfiche library held at NSY into an electronic database. Both these
areas are covered separately in this report.
8.13.2
Proposals to undertake such work will not receive support without sound business
cases evidencing the benefits. ACRO are capable of evidencing and articulating these
benefits.
8.13.3
The skill base within the team also provides a mechanism for identifying and
addressing obstacles to the implementation of new initiatives and legislation. By
environmental scanning for proposed changes to legislation and policy, required
technical changes to national systems can be properly considered and scoped before
they are implemented.
8.13.4
This preparation enables the police service to allocate the appropriate finance and
resources to such new measures. The implementation of the Exceptional Case Model,
which supports Chief Officers when dealing with requests to remove records, is one
example. Other examples include the introduction of PNDs, Simple Cautions and the
new PACE DNA kit.
Page 19 of 48
9
STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT AND THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY
“This group have provided a key forum for understanding modifications required to
information systems – particularly relevant for me where there is an impact on the
National DNA Database – arising from changes in legislation, putting operational
policing needs first”.
FSS Information Systems
9.1.1
The DNA & Fingerprint Retention Project ran from October 2003 to May 2006. In
January 2006, ACRO wrote to all stakeholders requesting their feedback on the
success of the project. This survey attracted significant interest from PITO, NDNAD
Custodian, Police Practitioners and NIS. The full survey and a summary of the findings
can be found at Appendices 1 and 4.
9.1.2
The value of providing a focal point for stakeholders in the relevant business areas
should not be underestimated. As the survey comments demonstrate, the concept of
an ACRO has plugged a gap and the benefits which emerge not only relate to policing
but non-police stakeholders who support it.
Page 20 of 48
10
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
10.1
24/7 Support and Websites
“It was really useful, and novel, to have a team of experts who usually had the
answer or would find a solution from their wide range of contacts”.
Kathryn Mashiter, Scientific Support Manager, Lancashire Constabulary
10.1.1
ACRO has developed a robust communication strategy including key individuals
within forces, such as Scientific Support Managers, Vetting and Disclosure Unit
Managers, PNC Bureaux Managers and Data Protection Officers. In respect of the
work concerning changes to police sampling powers, the team published FAQs on the
Centrex Genesis web-site and the ACPO Intranet.
10.1.2
A permanent 24/7 telephone service has also been useful to ensure that information
can be provided out of office hours.
10.1.3
Since the introduction of the Retention Guidelines, which were published as part of
the Management of Police Information Guidance on 31 March 2006, call volumes have
significantly increased. The Guidelines which were published on a number of websites
including the ACPO Internet and the Home Office have attracted significant interest
from the media, members of the public, solicitors and civil liberty groups.
10.1.4
ACRO are currently in the process of reviewing the Retention Guidelines, ensuring
that they contain all newly created recordable offences that have been legislated for
since the introduction of the Guidelines. The review will also take account of the
comments received from police forces and other stakeholders across England and
Wales.
Page 21 of 48
11
BUSINESS AREAS
11.1
Retention Guidelines and Step Model
11.1.1
The retention of criminal conviction data held on the Police National Computer
(PNC) had been regulated for many years by the ACPO General Rules for Criminal
Recording Weeding on Police Systems, commonly referred to as the “Weeding Rules”.
These rules were created by ACPO Crime Business Area to ensure that the retention
of conviction data was fair, and at the same time protected the public and police
officers. Adherence to the weeding rules sought to ensure that all forces adopted a
consistent approach.
11.1.2
In recent years, there have been some significant changes in terms of legislation
and public expectation, which called for a completely new and radical approach to this
area of police activity. In particular, legislation had created the opportunity for the
details of persons who have no previous offending history to be held on the PNC
alongside those who have criminal convictions.
11.1.3
PACE, as amended by The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, removed the
requirement for the police to destroy DNA and fingerprint samples, relating to persons
following acquittal or a decision not to prosecute. The Act, by definition, requires the
details of non-convicted individuals to be retained. Using the PNC to record associated
demographic information enables a link to be made to DNA and Fingerprints. This in
turn provides the potential for a match to be made between a crime scene and an
individual if that person re-offends.
11.1.4
PACE, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, provides the police with the
additional power to take DNA samples and fingerprints, from all persons coming into
police custody having been arrested, for recordable offences. In order to link these
samples to an individual, the police had to keep a demographic record on PNC.
11.1.5
A clear distinction had to be made between the retention of data for operational
policing purposes, and the use that other users or recipients may make of that data.
This led to the development of the Retention Guidelines.
11.1.6
The Retention Guidelines contain a ‘step down model’ and replace the weeding
regime. The concept of the ‘step down model’ is simply to restrict non-police access to
certain data fields after set periods of time, whilst allowing the police continued access
in support of operational policing. The ‘step down’ time periods are based on the
following criteria;
• The age of the subject
• The final outcome
• The sentence imposed
• The offence category
11.2
Information Commissioner Negotiations
11.2.1
Those representing the Information Commissioner have often stated their perceived
difficulties in having to deal with 43 data controllers for the police forces in England and
Wales. Their preference to have one higher level data controller in the form of ACPO
has been articulated on more than one occasion.
11.2.2
ACRO’s work has involved a great deal of consultation and negotiation with the
Page 22 of 48
Commissioner’s Office. These have not always been easy, reflecting the differing views
that each must, for understandable reasons, put forward.
11.2.3
However, by approaching the various issues in an open professional manner has
meant that we have been able to maintain a close working relationship. This situation is
probably best reflected in the comments made by the then Assistant Commissioner
(now Deputy Commissioner) David Smith whilst giving evidence at the Information
Tribunal Hearing (See Section 11.3). The following is taken from the transcript of the
evidence;
MR JONES: Mr Smith, would you agree with what I said earlier, I think it is apparent from
your second statement, that there has been much progress between yourself and ACPO I
think largely to do with the services of Mr Linton and the new provisions in relation to retention
of conviction data?
MR SMITH: Yes, there has been a lot of progress, and it may be an opportunity to pay tribute
to the professional way in which Mr Linton and his colleagues have dealt with this matter.
11.2.4
In January 2006, in response to a questionnaire sent out to evidence the
effectiveness of the DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project Team, Mr Smith said;
11.2.5
“We would strongly support the idea that there should be a permanent unit dealing
with police information management issues. In simple terms I have no doubt that it
would lead to more consistent and sensible DP and FOI compliance by the police and
better relations with us as regulator”
11.3
Information Tribunal
11.3.1
During 2004 the Information Commissioner served Enforcement Notices on three
Chief Constables requiring them to remove ‘old’ convictions from the PNC. These three
cases became test cases which ACPO decided to appeal. The matter was subject to
an Information Tribunal Hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice which commenced on
23 May 2005.
11.3.2
Members of ACRO were amongst those called to give evidence, having collected
strong evidence in support of the ACPO position. In particular a total of 19 focus
groups were held in ten forces across the country. The findings of this work were
produced in a report – “Exploring Operational Policing Views Concerning the Retention
of Conviction, Acquittal and Arrest History on the Police National Computer”.
11.3.3
The police officers and staff who took part in the focus group work were very clear in
articulating the need for the police to be able to access not only conviction records, but
also records of persons acquitted or simply arrested, and that those records needed to
be available for lengthy periods of time.
11.3.4
In a Judgment published on the 12 October 2005, the Information Tribunal issued
an amended enforcement notice allowing the police to retain the data in question but
restricting access to it. The amended enforcement notice had ramifications beyond the
3 cases to which it referred, effectively requiring a ‘police only access’ regime to be in
place in respect of certain data on the PNC. Whilst in the first instance that only related
to the 3 specific cases, it now clearly includes many others.
11.3.5
The Information Tribunal also gave clear support for the introduction of the
Retention Guidelines ‘step down model’ approach to provide a more sophisticated
regime for the management of PNC data.
11.3.6
Work has commenced to establish which organisations and agencies will be
Page 23 of 48
considered to be part of the ‘policing family’ and allowed access to PNC. This list will
be drawn up in consultation with the Information Commissioner (see section 11.2).
11.4
Police Information Access Panel (PIAP)
11.4.1
To achieve compliance with the Tribunal Judgment ACPO has established the
PIAP, chaired by A/DCC Adrian McAllister, to carry out a review of non-police users of
PNC information. ACRO were responsible for the creation of PIAP. They also provide
the secretariat to, and carry out most of the actions arising from PIAP meetings.
11.4.2
The work of the panel is broadly broken down into three areas;
• to review all the ‘non-police’ agencies who currently have direct access to PNC
information and decide which can be regarded as police and therefore have
access to ‘step down’ information and which cannot
• to review all the non-police agencies who access PNC information indirectly
through CO4 and NIS at New Scotland Yard, against the same criteria
• to review arrangements within forces for the sharing of PNC information to ensure
a consistent approach is achieved nationally
11.4.3
In addition the panel will consider new applications for access. This is a challenging
piece of work, particularly given the number and nature of the agencies concerned. By
way of illustration there are currently 38 agencies with direct access to PNC. They
include the Royal Mail, HM Prison Service, IND, Pensions Regulator, DTI, Department
of Transport, Health and Safety Executive, and Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).
11.4.4
Amongst those with applications pending are the Gambling Commission,
Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
(CEOPC).
11.4.5
This work has links to the implementation of the MoPI Guidance in forces, as it is
likely to influence existing and future Information Sharing Agreements.
11.4.6
What is becoming evident is that some form of national governance or custodian of
information may be imposed unless ACPO can be seen to protect and manage its
information effectively.
11.4.7
This takes on an even greater importance given the level of misuse and abuse of
PNC information that has been disclosed and discovered during the early stages of the
work of PIAP. Almost all of the major users including IND, HMPS, and Cabinet Office
freely admit to the fact that their staff misuse PNC information.
11.4.8
Having ACRO take a central role as manager of the information provides clear
evidence that ACPO is taking appropriate measures to safeguard its data whilst at the
some time permitting proper access for legitimate purposes. This is vital to help instill
public confidence in the way the police manage records and ensure greater
transparency.
11.5
Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR), Data Ownership and Access
Committee (DOAC)
11.5.1
ViSOR was developed by PITO for use by the Police, Prison, and Probation
Services to store and share information and intelligence on those individuals who have
been identified as posing a risk of serious harm to the public. The system also allows
users direct access to limited data fields on PNC.
Page 24 of 48
11.5.2
Chief Constable Terry Grange is the ACPO lead for ViSOR. As the system is for the
joint use of three services, issues have arisen in relation to data ownership and access.
Given his role as chair of PIAP, DCC Adrian McAllister has agreed to CC Grange’s
request to establish and chair a committee to consider and resolve those issues.
11.5.3
ACRO has now established the DOAC for which they also provide the secretariat,
and carry out most of the actions arising from meetings. This requires close working
relationships with colleagues in Scotland, PITO, and NOMS.
11.6
Exceptional Case Procedure for Removal of DNA, Fingerprints and PNC
Records
11.6.1
Following the implementation of the Retention Guidelines on 31 March 2006, and
the blanket cessation of weeding DNA, fingerprints and associated PNC records, it was
recognised that there was likely to be a significant increase in the number of requests
being made to Chief Constables for the removal of such records. Legal advice sought
from James Strachan (Counsel representing the HO in the S & Marper Appeal), during
the development of the Guidelines supported this, acknowledging the need for a ‘safety
valve’, however rarely used, once they were introduced.
11.6.2
Whilst acknowledging the responsibility of Chief Officers as Data Controllers, it
remains important that national consistency is achieved when considering the removal
of such records.
11.6.3
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 that specific entry. ACRO have
suggested that this discretion should only be exercised in exceptional cases, in
keeping with Counsel’s advice.
11.6.4
It was recognised that support may be required in making decisions regarding
exceptional cases. To achieve the consistency required DCC Ian Readhead, ACPO
Chairman of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Portfolio, directed that ACRO
maintain a library of circumstances that have been viewed as exceptional cases. This
will provide a ‘bank’ of precedents to assist Chief Officers in their decision making
process when considering requests to remove records. ACRO has considerable
experience in the relevant areas and offers advice in relation to requests from data
subjects, to both police forces and the subjects themselves.
11.6.5
Data Protection Officers and others within forces responsible for advising Chief
Officers on such matters, find it useful to seek advice from ACRO, prior to making
recommendations to their Chief Officers to delete a record deemed to be exceptional.
Under the authority of A/DCC McAllister and DCC Readhead, ACRO have ensured
that those who carry this responsibility are kept updated with relevant policy and
legislation as well as other information to assist in the process of advising their Chief
Officer.
11.6.6
As of the 19th October 2006 a total of 141 cases have been referred for advice and
currently resulted as follows:
• Retained – 22
• Removed – 43
• To be removed – 57
• Pending – 19
Page 25 of 48
11.7
UKCA - for the Exchange of Criminal Records (UKCA – ECR)
11.7.1
The need to improve the quality of information exchanged on convictions was
prioritised in the European Council Declaration on Combating Terrorism in 2004. This
work was given added impetus following two cases in Belgium5 and France6 ,
11.7.2
Subsequently a Council Decision in November 2005 declared a requirement for all
the Member States (MS) of the EU to exchange information extracted from criminal
records. The decision was designed to improve the systems of the 1959 Convention on
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. To support this decision there was a
requirement to establish a Central Authority for the exchange of criminal records, in
every MS.
11.7.3
After considering bids to set up this Authority, from CRB, SCRO and ACPO, the
Home Secretary declared that ACPO should take the lead. On 21 May 2006 the UK
Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records (UKCA – ECR) was launched
as part of ACRO.
11.7.4
The main tasks for the UKCA – ECR are;
• To notify the relevant Member State of any conviction(s) imposed in the UK
on a National from that Member State
• To receive notification of a conviction of a UK national in another Member State
and then to:
• Ensure that PNC is updated or new criminal records created.
• Ensure that convictions related to nationals from Scotland and PSNI are entered
onto PNC and the full details forwarded to SCRO and PSNI.
• Ensure that appropriate action is taken if fingerprints are attached to the
conviction notification.
• To receive and respond to requests, from all UK Police forces and other law
enforcement agencies, for an extract of the criminal record of a national from
another Member State.
• To receive and respond to requests from another Member State, for an extract
of the criminal record of a UK National. Whilst this process does not facilitate
employment vetting it does ensure that CRB searches are carried out against
PNC records that also contain any relevant foreign convictions of UK Nationals.
11.7.5
Since 21 May 2006 to the date of this report, there have been 232 UK requests for
criminal records checks with 19 countries within the EU. 119 (47%) of these requests
were for Poland alone, next were Portugal with 19. Of the enquiries requested from
other EU countries, it has been found that 37% do have previous criminal convictions
in their country of nationality.
11.7.6
The business benefits of this work are considerable. It has the potential to enhance
future CRB vetting checks, and will give the police service improved and up to date
information to assist in investigations. Ultimately there is clear potential for the scheme
to be developed world wide.
5 In 2003 Michel Fourniret, 63, was arrested by the Belgian Police for the murder of six French and one Belgian girl. He had
previously been sentenced in France to seven years imprisonment for rape and indecent assault on minors in France. The Belgian
authorities were unaware of his previous convictions. It is thought that he may have murdered up to 40 victims.
6 Francisco MONTES, 55, was convicted of the murder in France of Caroline Dickinson, in 2004. He had previously been arrested
for numerous sex offences in Germany and Spain.
Page 26 of 48
11.7.7
Other benefits include;
•
The exchange of criminal records will enable patterns of criminality to be
more readily identified, facilitating the appropriate operational response.
People smuggling, international paedophilia, drug trafficking, as well as
terrorist related offences are crimes which are trans-national by nature.
•
Courts will be able to take account of a convicted person’s complete
offending history when considering sentencing.
•
Having a dedicated Central Authority within the UK has already ensured
greater accuracy in the creation and updating of records. The unit is also
able to ensure consistency in identification of the offender by encouraging
the exchange of fingerprints, (and perhaps later DNA), to prove identity.
•
There will be an increased opportunity to identify wanted persons, both in
the UK and those subject of a European Arrest Warrant. This will lead to the
apprehension of offenders denying them the opportunity to commit further,
often serious crime.
•
The ability to identify offenders and emerging offending patterns, such as
Fourniret7 who commit serious crime in one country and who later move to,
and continue to commit crime in another country.
•
The timely creation of full and accurate conviction information on PNC and
other national databases, such as ViSOR, in support of policing purposes.
•
When investigating Terrorism and Organised Crime the police can make
greater use of intelligence markers to trace and monitor suspects.
•
Employment disclosure will be more effective due to the increase in
numbers of records being added or updated on PNC.
•
Strategies to create full and accurate records of offending will support the
CJIT exchange development programme.
•
Data Sharing Across Government for the purposes of National Security
Vetting
11.7.8
The UKCA-ECR inherited a total of 27,529 documents from the UKCA for Mutual
Legal Assistance in the Home Office. The documents were a mixed collection of
foreign conviction notifications received from Ministries of Justice in 15 countries, most
of which are in the EU. These documents, dating from 1999 to 2006 were all sent
under the 1959 Convention, had had no further action taken on them.
11.7.9
They contained details of 25 UK nationals convicted abroad of rape, 3 of attempted
rape, a further 46 convicted of sexual abuse (29 on children). There were also foreign
convictions for 5 murders, 9 attempted murders, 13 manslaughters and 29 robberies.
The majority of these serious foreign convictions of UK nationals were not on the PNC.
11.7.10
None of the 25 UK nationals convicted of rape had been made subject of the Sex
Offender Register. A major cause for concern is the fact that for these particular
offenders any previous checks for employment through the CRB would have returned a
‘no trace’, in which case these men could now be employed within the UK as teachers
or taxis drivers, for instance. Arrangements have been made to have a list of 525
7 Michel FOURNIRET, 63 was arrested for the murder of six French and 1 Belgian girl by Belgian police in 2003. Previously he
had been sentenced for seven years imprisonment for rape and indecent assault on minors in France. It is thought that he may
have murdered up to 40 victims.
Page 27 of 48
serious offenders, checked against the CRB system, to establish if any have applied
for employment within the UK.
11.7.11
There is an opportunity to assist IND in establishing the true credentials and
background of foreign nationals. Many fraudulently claim to be from the EU, while
others use forged or stolen documents.
11.7.12
In the future it would be entirely sensible to maintain the relationship with the ACRO
structure, in that a great deal of the work necessary to support the UKCA-ECR function
could be undertaken by staff employed within any ACRO Bureau, due to the close
alignment of the policing functions.
11.8
Subject Access
11.8.1
Subject Access is the mechanism through which the public access police data about
themselves. It is important that every opportunity to secure public confidence is
undertaken. The process is often enforced for Visa applications and employment
vetting purposes. It is therefore important that the police engage in this area from an
operational perspective as it provides advantages in law enforcement terms relating to
counter terrorism and protecting the public.
11.8.2
The Home Office have asked ACRO to review the Subject Access arrangements
whilst they consider strategic options to downsize the NIS within an acceptable
timeframe. ACRO are committed to develop and streamline the current PNC Subject
Access arrangements.
11.8.3
Police forces currently receive and process all applications and payment for Subject
Access checks. The Subject Access forms are forwarded to NIS who log and conduct
all the PNC checks. Every month, NIS provide the Home Office with a list of the
number of checks conducted on behalf of each force. The Home Office reclaim the
payment from each force and receive all funds centrally.
11.8.4
To support the downsizing of the NIS, the Home Office plan to transfer NIS
responsibility to conduct Subject Access checks to ACRO. In the short term however,
the Home Office are keen that the income generated from Subject Access checks
should be used to help fund the NIS work since it does not currently appear to fund any
part of the process.
11.8.5
The £10 ‘prescribed maximum’ Subject Access fee was set by the Secretary of
State when the first Data Protection Act was introduced in 1984. It has never been
revised. Historically, the fee was designed to cover the administrative cost of
processing the application. Twenty two years on, it may be appropriate to review the
fee. ACRO are working with the ACPO Chair of Data Protection and Freedom of
Information Portfolio, DCC Ian Readhead, to explore opportunities and will be
recommending any changes to the fee to the Secretary of State.
11.8.6
Many police forces would also like to see a significant reduction in staff and
administrative costs. If the Subject Access fees were increased, the income generated
could pump prime the establishment of a National PNC Bureau with the capability to
conduct the required volume of Subject Access checks, currently in excess of 200,000
pa. Once a new process is established with increased charges applied, it may be
possible to consider some form of cost recovery for forces. In the longer term, the
revenue could be used to centrally administer the whole process, perhaps online and
ACRO would take responsibility for the work.
11.8.7
The volume of Subject Access checks is intrinsically linked to other developing
Page 28 of 48
areas of business such as the work of the PIAP and the ability to carry out Basic
checks through the CRB.
11.8.8
CRB do not currently offer a basic check, although an equivalent service is available
through Disclosure Scotland. Through the work of the PIAP, some non-police
organisations are being denied access to PNC, particularly for the purpose of
employment vetting. As an affordable alternative, many potential employers may
choose to enforce Subject Access on potential employees, rather than conduct the
business through Disclosure Scotland. If CRB introduced the Basic check, it is likely
that the number of Subject Access checks would significantly drop. Recent research
undertaken by Jayne Lawler8 has identified that as many as 80% of all Subject Access
requests are enforced.
11.8.9
The process of Enforced Subject Access is considered inappropriate by the
Information Commissioner, although it is frequently used for the purposes of
employment vetting or visa applications. ACRO have met with the US Embassy and
are liaising with CRB concerning an ACPO proposal to deal with the Visa
requirements.
11.8.10
An ‘Enforced Subject Access Working Group’ recently recommended that the ‘Home
Office should support the implementation of basic checks or open up standard checks
to deal with employee vetting and visa requirements’. ACRO consider it a retrograde
step to allow the standard level disclosure service to subsume basic checks where the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should apply. Such a move would completely
undermine the principles of the Act.
11.8.11
ACRO support the full introduction of the Basic Disclosure Service in England and
Wales, although it seems increasingly unlikely that CRB will be offering such a service
in the short to medium term.
11.8.12
Similar consideration should be given to the DNA Subject Access Process where
currently the FSS, the data processor retain the £10 fee. Following the appointment of
a Home Office National DNA Database Custodian, CC Tony Lake is supportive that the
processes are reviewed and alternative arrangements are explored if necessary.
11.9
BRC Microfiche
11.9.1
In May 2005 an Information Tribunal heard an appeal by three Chief Constables
against Enforcement Notices, served on them by the Information Commissioner,
requiring the deletion of conviction data. The resulting judgment was the latest
development in a series of legal scrutinies concerning the management of police data.
11.9.2
ACPO recognises that the tribunal outcome has presented an opportunity to
improve the management of police information, not least to ensure that it is not
disclosed inappropriately. The microfiche library was considered by the Information
Tribunal, who directed that erasure, removal or deletion from police systems should
mean just that. The microfiche library is therefore not sustainable in its current format.
In addition to the Information Tribunal directions, there is a Home Office/NIS strategy to
remove the microfiche library from NSY in 2007.
11.9.3
The issues surrounding the microfiche library have been evident for over 16 years
and are now becoming critical. A PITO Proof of Concept Pilot to determine whether
options available for full digitisation of the microfiche library were feasible was carried
out and finally reported on in February 2004. Although the pilot was a success, the
8 Head of Information Assurance Services, Lancashire Constabulary
Page 29 of 48
estimated cost of £12m was too expensive, would take at least 6 years to complete,
and did not offer a complete solution by entering the data on PNC. The proposal was
rejected.
11.9.4
ACPO have tasked ACRO to produce some radical proposals aimed at satisfying
the directions of the Information Tribunal. A survey of all forces carried out by ACRO
has revealed that there remains a policing requirement to continue to retain the entire
microfiche library.
11.9.5
A business case that significantly improves the data management aspects for the
police service, produces substantial cost savings for the Home Office and space
savings for the Metropolitan Police, will be produced. ACRO will be able to provide the
space and staff to continue the service provided by NIS, whilst working to have the
entire microfiche collection digitised. Based on research already undertaken, it is likely
that this work will take three years to complete.
11.9.6
The longer term goal will be to provide all police forces with direct access to the
microfiche data via the PNC. Given the scale of the work, it is recognised that any
proposal will have to be based on a phased approach clearly identifying and
addressing the risks.
11.9.7
The microfiche library houses a historic archive of approximately 5.3 million
records. The data on fiche starts from 1918 and ends in May 1995. It contains
criminal conviction information; including arrests and convictions together with personal
details and police intelligence information such as associates and modus operandi.
For some records there may be more than one fiche.
11.9.8
Prior to 1995, police forces sent this information to the NIS in paper format. It was
then entered onto PNC and filmed for storage as microfiche. Since May 1995, forces
have entered their own information onto PNC and the NIS is no longer involved in that
part of the process.
11.9.9
NIS have already BRC over 4 million of these records to the PNC. This exercise
has included inputting the arrest and disposal detail to PNC but does not include the
MO or any warning signals for example. Effectively this means that records created
between 1981 and 1995 have already been BRC to ‘conviction level’.
11.9.10
Convictions recorded pre 1981 are still only available from microfiche unless an
individual has subsequently come to the notice of the police, or the CRB, through the
employment vetting process or when an individual applied for a Subject Access check.
In such cases the BRC process should have been applied.
11.9.11
On a daily basis, police forces from around the country request the information held
on these records to be manually extracted for analysis following the arrest of a
suspect.
11.9.12
The NIS currently provides a 24/7 service to police to supply information from (or
copies of) the microfiche. However forces have indicated that there may no longer be
a 24/7 requirement for access to the library. ACRO recognise that such a change
would bring substantial cashable savings which could be used to improve the
management of the historic records
11.9.13
Currently, CRB provide the funding for staff to BRC records which come to notice
through the vetting process under Part V Police Act 1997. This funding will no longer
be required when the ACRO proposals are adopted. This equates to a saving of ~60
staff posts.
Page 30 of 48
11.10
BRC Acquittals
11.10.1
One of the objectives for ACRO is;
"To devise and implement a solution for the restoration of weeded records held by
Police Forces under the authority of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001".
11.10.2
With the work undertaken to stop the weeding of records from PNC complete , there
is a need to assess the scale of the BRC, which will represent a significant challenge to
the police service.
11.10.3
The requirement is to BRC records which continued to weed from the PNC from
May 2001 to 05 December 2005. Indications are that there could be as many as
800,000 records. Where forces followed the advice given in June 2001, the records are
retained in three formats; paper, microfiche, and electronic.
11.10.4
At a recent meeting of the Metropolitan Police PNC Strategy Board, consideration
was given to three options on how to deal with its own backlog of records (240,000).
The options were i) to reinstate all the records held by them, ii) not to reinstate any of
the records held by them, iii) to reinstate only those records where it is the only record
held on an individual. No final decision was made but there was a strong view that
nothing should be done with the records because of the associated cost of taking up
options i) or iii). An action was raised to establish the current ACPO view on what
should happen to the records.
11.10.5
Since 11 May 2001, Sections 81 and 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001,
have allowed for the retention of the DNA and Fingerprints relating to those who are
acquitted of an offence or a decision is made not to prosecute.
11.10.6
Whilst the DNA and fingerprints were retained in these cases, the PNC Nominal
record continued to weed from PNC until 05 December 2005.
11.10.7
In June 2001, forces were advised that:
"In respect of fingerprint acquittals, Forces must retain the hard copy tenprint
form, together with the Force source input document for subsequent back-
record conversion, as soon as the technical capability to do that on PNC is
achieved."
CC Ben Gunn, Cambridgeshire Constabulary
11.10.8
Although the retention of fingerprints was allowed from May 2001, they did not
cease to weed from the NAFIS database (now IDENT1) until 17 August 2003. That
backlog has been addressed by forces on a selective basis. This has been primarily by
way of retaining only 'first time come to notice' acquittals (because other 'convicted'
tenprint sets were already on the system).
11.10.9
In respect of DNA samples, the link between PNC and the NDNAD was not effected
until 05 November 2001. Since that time, the profiles linked to acquitted Arrest
Summons Numbers have been retained. They are flagged on the NDNAD by way of a
Retained Acquittal (RA) marker.
11.10.10
If the BRC is to be done by forces individually then there are likely to be
considerable costs involved. One force carried out a feasibility study of its requirement
to BRC approximately 20,000 paper records. The cost was estimated to be in the
region of £200,000 with only £35,000 of that going towards changes to its custody
system. The remainder is the estimated cost of researching and re-inputting the court
result. If that sort of cost is carried over to all forces then the likely gross cost of dealing
Page 31 of 48
with all the records will reach £8m. (The force concerned decided that it would not
pursue the matter further).
11.10.11
Options to resolve the issue have been under discussion with PITO who have stated
it is likely to require substantial work. An electronic solution from the centre may not be
possible and cooperation with forces could be required.
11.10.12
Decisions need to be made on what part(s) of the weeded record need to be
reinstated. It may be that it is only the ‘first time come to notice’ records which are
reinstated, as was the case for a BRC programme for reinstating fingerprints, in 2004.
This is not the ideal solution and may well take as long to do as all the records when
taking into account the amount of research required. There are also likely to be legal
implications, which could influence this decision.
11.11
Parliamentary Questions and Data provision
11.11.1
Since the introduction of Sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ACRO
have been monitoring the associated business benefits. Such benefits provided
invaluable evidence to encourage police forces which were slow to take up the powers
to take DNA & fingerprints from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and
detained at a police station.
11.11.2
ACRO have supported the FSPU in answering a number of Parliamentary
Question’s (PQ’s) relating to the retention of DNA, particularly in relation to those who
are arrested and not proceeded against. These include questions from Grant Shapps
MP, John Penrose MP, Norman Baker MP, Edward Leigh MP, Lynne Featherstone
MP, Stewart Jackson MP.
11.11.3
ACRO have also assisted other Home Office Departments such as the Police
Leadership and Powers Unit and the Police Information Computer Technology Unit
with Ministerial briefings and PQ’s in respect of the retention and disclosure of
information held on the Police National Computer.
11.11.4
Most recently, ACRO contributed to an article for CJS Review at the request of
FSPU, following an enquiry from the Prime Minister’s Office. The ACRO contribution
formed part of the response provided to the Prime Minister’s Office and informed the
recent Labour Party Conference.
11.11.5
The work has identified the clear requirement for further focused work to support
police forces who are not maximising their opportunities to lawfully obtain samples.
This work is detailed in Section 11.12.
11.12
Forensic Integration Strategy (FIS) and DNA Operations Group
11.12.1
Over the past three years the team have been charged with the completion of a
number of areas of work on behalf of the FSPU.
11.12.2
Initially the project work fell into three key areas:
i) Assisting forces to implement the changes to PACE concerned with taking and
retaining DNA samples and fingerprints following the Criminal Justice and
Police Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003
ii) Securing the relevant technology changes through negotiation and liaison with
PITO, DNA Custodian and IDENT1
iii) Writing national policies, on behalf of ACPO, in support of the retention of DNA,
fingerprints and associated demographic information on the PNC.
Page 32 of 48
11.12.3
There have been several occasions when the team have been called upon to
organise meetings on Forensic issues, most notably a Cross-Border DNA Workshop
and a seminar on Maximising Opportunities to Share DNA across Europe.
11.12.4
ACRO have provided the professional interface with appropriate knowledge to
complete research amongst practitioners within the police and other relevant
stakeholders. This innovative work has enabled FIS to develop new initiatives and
legislation based on operational police requirements. It has also served as an excellent
buffer to legal challenges. One such example is when ACRO were commissioned to
produce a report to illustrate the operational policing value of the Criminal Justice Act
2003 was brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for forensic matters.
11.12.5
There has been focused work on increasing the proportion of people who are
lawfully DNA sampled, by continuing to support the implementation of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003. Forces suffered variously from not being able to fully engage in
taking the samples through the delays in having changes made to NSPIS Custody and
other Requests for Change submitted to PITO. To enable this work research is carried
out across the figures provided by PITO to identify those forces which are apparently
under-achieving. Once identified a visit is made to provide advice and support in those
business areas where required.
11.12.6
More recently there has been exploratory work to exchange fingerprints and DNA
between EU Member States through the work of the UK Central Authority for the
Exchange of Criminal Records (throughout the EU Member States). This supports the
FIS work stream to maximise the opportunities to share DNA and fingerprints across
Europe. At the request of the FSPU, ACRO is exploring the use of Interpol’s i24 for
DNA information exchange.
11.12.7
ACRO provide the secretariat function to the DNA Operations Group, another
member attends the meetings and the manager is a member of the Forensic Science
Committee reporting on the ACRO work streams relating to forensics.
11.12.8
There remains a further requirement for the team to continue to provide support to
the FSPU in key areas, specifically:-
•
Review of the NDNAD Subject Access Process and publication of finalised
procedure.
•
Focused work to support those forces who are not maximising their
opportunities to lawfully take DNA and fingerprints.
•
Review the position of forces obtaining DNA and fingerprints in relation to
non recordable offences.
•
Review the position of retaining and storing second DNA samples and their
use.
•
Reviewing and coordinating DNA Liaison Panels/Bulletins.
•
Review of the work that has been conducted concerning volunteer
procedures.
11.12.9
This new work will require additional staffing and funding resources. Although it is
aimed at Forensic issues it is clearly linked to the remaining work of ACRO in the field
of records. Funding will be required for two additional staff. As a requirement initiated
by central government, a study has already begun to provide support to those forces
who are not maximising the opportunities to take fingerprints and DNA. The work will
eventually provide greater clarity to forces on the procedures involved in sampling and
recording and will, by default, lead to cost savings and improved efficiency.
Page 33 of 48
11.12.10
Although not directly linked to the FIS work, there is a link to the work of the UKCA-
ECR (See Section 11.7). The progress of this initiative, built upon a European Council
Decision to exchange criminal records of those nationals who offend in other Member
States, will eventually lead to the exchange of fingerprints and DNA. Although not an
exclusive requirement the UK leads other Member States in requiring the criminal
record to be linked to fingerprints to prove identity. Other States are less reliant on this
process but some have announced an interest in following the UK example.
11.13
MoPI and IMPACT
“The relationship between the DNA FRP and my work on Review, Retention
and Disposal for the Bichard Guidance is significant and my work has benefited
greatly from the information and advice provided by the DNA FRP team. I have
made use of the telephone support line and email and met with various
individual team members in an effort to align my work with the extensive
progress already made by the DNA FRP team and am very grateful for their
quality input to date”.
NCPE Bichard Team
11.13.1
ACRO have been consulted throughout the development of the Code and Guidance
for MoPI and IMPACT and have made key contributions to several areas of the
Guidance, including the Review, Retention and Disposal (RRD) of information chapter.
11.13.2
ACRO also participated on the working group to produce the Threshold Standards
document.
11.13.3
Following a number of emerging issues relating to RRD, ACRO have been able to
put forward some alternative views, particularly around making more productive use of
the PNC. These have the potential to make significant savings in police staff/officers
time relating to custody records. Currently, custody records under the MoPI regime
require a 6 yearly and therefore ongoing review process on each of 43 forces local
systems. This involves numerous complex decisions and significant resources. ACRO
have introduced an automated model that completely removes this requirement with a
significant saving per annum through use of the PNC when arrestees are logged.
11.13.4
The Head of ACRO regularly attends both the IMPACT and MoPI Boards. Whilst the
work of both has been largely in parallel, it has always been recognised that the work
of ACRO and IMPACT / MoPI would need to be linked. This is particularly true in
relation to the development of the Police National Database by 2010/2011. The PNC
will however play a fundamental role in policing for at least the next five years and
neglect in this area, based upon a move to a new system in the future would be a
significant mistake.
11.14
CRB Links
11.14.1
ACRO has enjoyed a close working relationship with colleagues in the CRB over the
last three years. The first contact was to represent ACPO, in the form of the then
ACPO President Chris Fox, and DCC Ian Readhead, to complete a piece of work to
jointly exploit opportunities to provide an improved Enhanced Disclosure process.
11.14.2
This work culminated in the production of a Joint Report titled “Enhanced Disclosure
Review Report “. This report was the foundation of a number of changes to the
process, most notably the introduction of the Quality Assurance Framework.
11.14.3
Since that time regular contact has been maintained as part of the communications
strategy. There continues to be regular consultation and close working liaison with
Page 34 of 48
CRB, particularly in relation to the development of the Retention Guidelines and
changes that are required to primary legislation, to amend the definition of police
‘central records’.
11.14.4
That close relationship has been evident throughout the work to establish the ACPO
UKCA-ECR. Whilst at the outset both ACPO and the CRB submitted business cases to
become the UKCA, it was made clear that this was a core police function, and the
Home Secretary appointed ACPO to perform this important role on behalf of the United
Kingdom.
11.14.5
The CRB perform a valuable and essential role in the protection of children and
vulnerable adults. There is however a risk of ‘mission creep’ where the CRB seeks to
use both its name and access to police information to move into other areas of police
work. For example it is known that CRB are interested in taking a more proactive role
in Subject Access, and have suggested they could supply a new ‘Visa Certificate’ for
those persons seeking to live or work abroad. These and indeed any other areas of
activity all rely on access to and use of police information. It may be wise for ACPO to
carefully consider the implications of any such suggestions which might at first blush
appear attractive.
11.15
Non-police Agencies and Foreign National Criminals
11.15.1
The work of PIAP, and to a lesser extent that of ViSOR DOAC, has involved the
development of close working arrangements with key stakeholders to ensure that
future agreements for access to systems, particularly the PNC, are mutually
satisfactory and comply with legal requirements.
11.15.2
There has been a great deal of media focus in recent times on both IND and HMPS,
particularly in relation to the foreign national prisoner issues.
11.15.3
Both agencies have had direct access to PNC information for some time. However
the current agreements are out of date and do not reflect the usage that both agencies
would now wish to make of the police data.
11.15.4
Both agencies are working hard to capture the full range of activities that might
justify a PNC check for inclusion in their corporate business case for consideration by
PIAP. ACRO are providing support to both agencies as they develop their business
cases.
11.15.5
IND and HMPS are good examples of organisations whose demand for access to
PNC information has grown exponentially in a short period of time, and has certainly
outgrown their own internal ability to deliver. It will undoubtedly be a long time before
either is able to move to create and update PNC records.
11.15.6
By way of example until very recently IND were carrying out around 7,000 PNC
checks per month. That figure has risen to around 15,000 per month and in early 2007
there is a predicted level of demand around 250,000 per month. Clearly with their
current arrangements even if PIAP were to give their agreement to the checks being
done, IND could not cope.
11.15.7
The solution in the short to medium term may be a mixed approach. For instance
some checks could be by way of automated bulk data searches, others perhaps ‘real
time checks’ in support of operational IND staff could be carried out by IND whilst the
remainder of the ‘slow time’ checks could be carried out by ACRO. Clearly the checks
carried out by ACRO would be at cost, but that is likely to be a cheaper and more
efficient solution than IND having to recruit, train, and find accommodation for a large
Page 35 of 48
number of new staff.
11.15.8
These principles apply to all non-police agencies with a justifiable demand for PNC
access. The creation of an ACRO PNC Bureau brings with it significant benefits
including economies of scale and a more structured approach supporting the
requirements of all partner agencies.
Page 36 of 48
12
APPENDICES
Page 37 of 48
12.1
Appendix 1 – Summary of Stakeholder Survey Results
A selection of comments made in response to a questionnaire sent out in January 2006.
DNA Expansion & FIS
“As a policy maker and not a police officer it has on many occasions been very helpful to
have the advice of the police in terms of practices and procedures on the ground”.
Home Office Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
“This group have provided a key forum for understanding modifications required to
information systems – particularly relevant for me where there is an impact on the National
DNA Database – arising from changes in legislation, putting operational policing needs first”.
FSS Information Systems
“Progress has been made in areas that may not have been achieved without the work of
DNA FRP”.
FSS Customer Training
“Extremely valuable resource”.
DNA Consultant
PNC
“Given the complexity and inter-relatedness of the legislation and complexity of the PNC
itself, I’m not sure that PITO and FSS technical representatives would have been able to
work through the issues”.
FSS Information Systems
“The project initially I suspect had fairly focussed terms of reference, however it soon
became apparent that PNC and in particular the issues dealt with by the Project team cuts
across a huge area of policing. The research, evidence and advice provided has been
invaluable in supporting policy decisions and the necessary contacts to make those
decisions happen quickly with the necessary support from ACPO. It has clearly identified
that there is a large gap in the provision of information in this broad area to all levels of the
Police Service. PNC users have made many comments to me about the lack of a central
advice point, Currently many enquiries are made through me but quite frankly I am not in a
position to deal with these enquiries in as professional a manner as I would like to”.
National PNC Advisor
“Absolute requirement”
PNC / PITO / Hendon
“The proposal for establishing a central referral point for ‘exceptions handling’ type work
would be strongly welcomed by NIS. This has been lacking in the past, and is particularly
relevant in maintaining a uniform approach across police forces. The higher profile of this
area of business particularly emphasises the need for this. It would also be extremely useful
to have a unit with responsibility for maintaining (e.g.) Retention Guidelines up to date”.
NIS (MPS)
38
The review of the PNC codes of practice, with its requirement for timeliness and accuracy
overlapped a number of areas covered by this group. It was good to have one ‘port of call’
for this information. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the covering letter, information
management is an ongoing responsibility and the creation of a permanent group would
ensure that the matters constantly arising in this area are addressed quickly The output from
such a group would ensure a consistent national approach to these contentious issues.
PNC Consultant
Negotiation with PITO
“The project team have been invaluable to me personally in my current role in raising
awareness of the issues and priorities of certain work and in ensuring that PITO have clearly
defined expectations from the users of PNC”.
National PNC Advisor
“I appreciate the vast numbers of change requests that go into PITO stretches their
resources and it is useful to have what would be considered specialists in the forensic
retention, putting our case forward, retention of forensic samples (fingerprints / DNA)
becomes much less useful if this data is not retained on PNC”.
Force SSM
“The support provided by the team in dealings with PITO has been unquestionably vital. This
was particularly so when negotiating changes to the PNC necessary as a consequence of
implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”.
Home Office Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
Introduction of new procedures & processes
“The benefits to operational policing has led to a strong demand for the implementation
across the Force. This in turn has led to the realisation that using Livescan with the Criminal
Justice Act can produce excellent results. As a result, consideration is now being given to
recruiting additional resources to take fingerprints on Livescan immediately upon arrest and
identifying further offences whilst the detainee is still in custody”.
Custody Sergeant Avon & Somerset Constabulary
“Extremely useful. Again, using as an example the implementation of C J Act, we were able
to plan (well in advance) a training programme for staff in our PNC Bureau and the force in
general. The documentation received from the DNA FRP Team was comprehensive and
detailed to practitioner level. His meant that management did not have to start planning with
a blank sheet of paper, thus enabling us to adapt the guidance given nationally to suit local
circumstances. This helped us to a speedy and relatively trouble free implementation”.
S/Yorkshire Constabulary
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the benefits to operational policing and the wider
Criminal Justice System following changes in the law introduced by the Criminal Justice and
Police Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would not have been realised to the extent
that they have without the assistance of the DNA/Fingerprint Project”.
Home Office Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
39
“Our contacts have been very helpful, the team has been friendly and approachable and
delivered the goods!”
Judicial Co-operation – Home Office
“This group have provided a key forum for understanding modifications required to
information systems – particularly relevant for me where there is an impact on the National
DNA Database – arising from changes in legislation, putting operational policing needs first”.
FSS Information Systems
Communication
“The availability of someone in the team to bounce idea’s and suggestions off has been an
immense support in ensuring that decisions are only made after all issues have been
considered and as a result advice and policies have been far more considerate and
balanced”.
PITO National PNC Advisor
“During the implementation of legislation re sampling at the point of arrest there were
numerous difficult issues to resolve. It was really useful, and novel, to have a team of
experts who usually had the answer or would find a solution from their wide range of
contacts. The links with a team with such a wealth of knowledge has been invaluable. I feel
that, in this area, I always have someone to turn to for assistance”.
Force SSM
“Securing the point of contact within DNA FRP to act on behalf of ACPO has been extremely
useful in focusing our discussion”.
International Directorate Home Office
“We would strongly support the idea that there should be a permanent unit dealing with
police information management issues. In simple terms I have no doubt that it would lead to
more consistent and sensible DP and FOI compliance by the police and better relations with
us as regulator”.
Information Commissioner’s Office
Legal Challenges
“The assistance and co-operation of Det Supt Linton and his team at the DNA/F’print
Retention Project has been absolutely invaluable in all stages up to and including the House
of Lords in R on the application of S & Marper v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (the
Appellants have lodged a claim in the European Court I understand). The team provided an
indispensable link to the national issues and information relating to S.82 of the Criminal
Justice and Police Act 2001 – which was the subject of the challenge in S & Marper – and I
have no doubt made a crucial contribution to the successful outcome”.
Force Solicitor South Yorkshire Police
“I have drawn enormous benefit from the operational advantages offered by the DNA FRP
retention guidelines. The RRD chapter I have prepared is based on a presumption of
retention wherever information is necessary and adequate and my line of argument is
supported by the work completed by the DNA FRP to date. Additionally, I had the advantage
of seeing the judgement from the Information Tribunal case relevant to this topic, prior to the
completion of my chapter and was able to utilise several examples and strands of argument
offered by the DNA FRP during this hearing”.
NCPE CENTREX
40
“Essential to prove business need and the need for change process involving the Data
protection commissioner and capable of dealing with legal challenge”.
Information Assurance Officer – Police Force
Police Service Support
“Team has assisted Essex Police with particular advice & guidance regarding specific
complaints raised by data subjects on the continued retention of ‘innocent’ persons’ data and
forensic material – enabling us to provide a robust response to a complainant which we know
is in accord with the national view”.
Information Compliance Team
“Implementing the CJA powers alongside NSPIS custody has been difficulty. Advice and
support for the difficulties we have faced have been invaluable. I have frequently been in
contact with the DNA FRP office who have been able to assist in issues with NSPIS, PITO
and Police Standards Unit”.
Custody Sergeant Avon & Somerset Constabulary
Bichard Code & Guidance
“The relationship between the DNA FRP and my work on Review, Retention and Disposal for
the Bichard Guidance is significant and my work has benefited greatly from the information
and advice provided by the DNA FRP team. I have made use of the telephone support line
and email and met with various individual team members in an effort to align my work with
the extensive progress already made by the DNA FRP team and am very grateful for their
quality input to date”.
NCPE Bichard Team
“The DNA FRP have played an integral part in the development of the guidance on the
Management of Police Information (MoPI). The advice has always been accurate, timely and
delivered in a format that is easy to know”.
NCPE Doctrine Writer
Business Benefits
“In responding to questions in Parliament or in dealing with judicial cases the information and
statistics provided by the team have been extremely valuable and Ministers have in particular
been very grateful for the evidence provided to support the justification for the extension of
police powers to take and retain DNA and fingerprints”.
Home Office Forensic Science and Pathology Unit
“The DNA FRP is continuing to provide a source of advice, assisting in making decisions on
dissemination of intelligence abroad in line with new guidance. In addition the project has
provided significant assistance, at the request of the Home Office, which is contributing to the
development of international DNA intelligence sharing”.
NCIS, International
“Very useful because all of the work to which the DNA FRP have addressed has implications
in the OPERATIONAL sphere of Police work. Example – from the statistics compiled by
DNA FRP we have been able to monitor the business benefits such as the increase in the
numbers of fingerprints/samples taken (which leads to a potential increase in detections).
41
Whilst acknowledging that this task is achievable in-force, it is extremely time consuming so
we are grateful for the assistance in this area from the DNA FRP Team”.
Police Standards Unit
42
12.2
Appendix 2 - Predicted PNC Charge Increases
ACRO
2007-2008 total
Number of
Current
Projected
requirement
PNC User
projected
checks pa
charge pa
Increase
(1.5/8*project
charge
ed increase)
POLICE - proposed 25% increase
Avon & Somerset
2,903,460
£534,755.52
£668,444.40
£133,688.88
£25,066.67
Bedfordshire
977,589
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
Cambridgeshire
1,057,478
£235,292.43
£294,115.54
£58,823.11
£11,029.33
Cheshire
1,607,218
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
City of London
632,305
£128,341.32
£160,426.66
£32,085.33
£6,016.00
Cleveland
937,569
£256,682.65
£320,853.31
£64,170.66
£12,032.00
Cumbria
907,730
£149,731.55
£187,164.43
£37,432.89
£7,018.67
Derbyshire
2,151,290
£320,853.31
£401,066.64
£80,213.33
£15,040.00
Devon & Cornwall
1,492,906
£534,755.52
£668,444.40
£133,688.88
£25,066.67
Dorset
1,516,054
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
Durham
963,142
£235,292.43
£294,115.54
£58,823.11
£11,029.33
Dyfed-Powys
1,327,292
£149,731.55
£187,164.43
£37,432.89
£7,018.67
Essex
3,421,170
£534,755.52
£668,444.40
£133,688.88
£25,066.67
Gloucestershire
729,542
£171,121.77
£213,902.21
£42,780.44
£8,021.33
Greater Manchester
4,606,443
£1,197,852.36
£1,497,315.46
£299,463.09
£56,149.33
Gwent
774,177
£235,292.43
£294,115.54
£58,823.11
£11,029.33
Hampshire
2,071,404
£620,316.40
£775,395.50
£155,079.10
£29,077.33
Hertfordshire
1,256,481
£385,023.97
£481,279.97
£96,255.99
£18,048.00
Humberside
1,604,943
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
Kent
7,482,565
£556,145.74
£695,182.18
£139,036.44
£26,069.33
Lancashire
2,613,564
£534,755.52
£668,444.40
£133,688.88
£25,066.67
Leicestershire
1,114,310
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
Lincolnshire
822,143
£192,511.99
£240,639.98
£48,128.00
£9,024.00
Merseyside
2,523,455
£684,487.07
£855,608.83
£171,121.77
£32,085.33
Metropolitan Police
16,713,022
£4,342,214.82
£5,427,768.53
£1,085,553.71
£203,541.32
Norfolk
915,865
£256,682.65
£320,853.31
£64,170.66
£12,032.00
North Wales
1,219,397
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
North Yorkshire
1,020,290
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
Northamptonshire
1,594,990
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
Northumbria
2,170,395
£577,535.96
£721,919.95
£144,383.99
£27,072.00
Nottinghamshire
2,128,077
£385,023.97
£481,279.97
£96,255.99
£18,048.00
South Wales
1,835,429
£513,365.30
£641,706.62
£128,341.32
£24,064.00
South Yorkshire
2,808,352
£534,755.52
£668,444.40
£133,688.88
£25,066.67
Staffordshire
1,810,916
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
Suffolk
583,938
£213,902.21
£267,377.76
£53,475.55
£10,026.67
Surrey
1,046,819
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
Sussex
2,434,018
£491,975.08
£614,968.85
£122,993.77
£23,061.33
Thames Valley
3,519,979
£727,267.51
£909,084.38
£181,816.88
£34,090.66
Warwickshire
1,033,628
£171,121.77
£213,902.21
£42,780.44
£8,021.33
West Mercia
1,710,111
£342,243.53
£427,804.42
£85,560.88
£16,042.67
West Midlands
5,002,177
£1,304,803.47
£1,631,004.34
£326,200.87
£61,162.66
West Yorkshire
3,246,685
898,389.27
£1,122,986.59
£224,597.32
£42,112.00
Wiltshire
628,726
192,511.99
£240,639.98
£48,128.00
£9,024.00
Sub TOTAL
96,917,044
21,390,220.80
£26,737,776.00
£5,347,555.20
£1,002,666.60
43
SCOTTISH FORCES (predictions based on current charge of £750,000 pa and predicted 25% increase)
Central
200,615
£30,026.25
£37,532.81
£7,506.56
£1,407.48
Dumfries & Galloway
241,811
£36,192.09
£45,240.12
£9,048.02
£1,696.50
Fife
407,140
£60,937.05
£76,171.31
£15,234.26
£2,856.42
Grampian
512,374
£76,687.53
£95,859.41
£19,171.88
£3,594.73
Lothian & Borders
1,047,079
£156,717.35
£195,896.69
£39,179.34
£7,346.13
Northern
227,211
£34,006.90
£42,508.62
£8,501.72
£1,594.07
Strathclyde
1,896,394
£283,835.17
£354,793.97
£70,958.79
£13,304.77
Tayside
478,367
£71,597.66
£89,497.08
£17,899.42
£3,356.14
Sub Total
5,010,991
£750,000.00
£937,500.00
£187,500.00
£35,156.25
NON-POLICE - predicted 56% increase
Assets Recovery Agency
3,478
£1,565.10
£2,408.52
£843.42
£158.14
Bramshill College
23,916
£10,762.20
£16,561.83
£5,799.63
£1,087.43
British Transport Police
752,894
£338,802.30
£521,379.10
£182,576.80
£34,233.15
Centrex
11,560
£5,202.00
£8,005.30
£2,803.30
£525.62
Charity Commission
186
£83.70
£128.81
£45.11
£8.46
Civil Nuclear Constabulary
3,240
£1,458.00
£2,243.70
£785.70
£147.32
Courts (Warrant
207,133
£93,209.85
£143,439.60
£50,229.75
£9,418.08
Enforcement)
Courts Service
203,852
£91,733.40
£141,167.51
£49,434.11
£9,268.90
Criminal Cases Review
427
£192.15
£295.70
£103.55
£19.42
Commission
Criminal Records Bureau
671,585
£302,213.25
£465,072.61
£162,859.36
£30,536.13
D.V.L.A.
24,822
£11,169.90
£17,189.24
£6,019.34
£1,128.63
Department of Trade &
2,074
£933.30
£1,436.25
£502.95
£94.30
Industry
Department for Work &
53,778
£24,200.10
£37,241.27
£13,041.17
£2,445.22
Pensions - Solicitors
Disclosure Scotland
1,783,268
£802,470.60
£1,234,913.09
£432,442.49
£81,082.97
Environment Agency
644
£289.80
£445.97
£156.17
£29.28
Financial Services Authority
496
£223.20
£343.48
£120.28
£22.55
Foreign & Commonwealth
13,678
£6,155.10
£9,472.02
£3,316.92
£621.92
Office
Forensic Science Service
1,802,397
£811,078.65
£1,248,159.92
£437,081.27
£81,952.74
Guernsey
72,634
£32,685.30
£50,299.05
£17,613.75
£3,302.58
Health & Safety Executive
237
£106.65
£164.12
£57.47
£10.78
Her Majesty's Inspectorate
1,086
£488.70
£752.06
£263.36
£49.38
of Constabulary
HM Revenue & Customs
456,055
£205,224.75
£315,818.09
£110,593.34
£20,736.25
Home Office Data Quality &
99,341
£44,703.45
£68,793.64
£24,090.19
£4,516.91
Integrity Team (I month)
Home Office Departmental
32,796
£14,758.20
£22,711.23
£7,953.03
£1,491.19
Security Unit
Immigration & Nationality
225,058
£101,276.10
£155,852.67
£54,576.57
£10,233.11
Directorate (ICD)
Immigration & Nationality
79,368
£35,715.60
£54,962.34
£19,246.74
£3,608.76
Directorate (Status 2)
Isle of Man
37,327
£16,797.15
£25,848.95
£9,051.80
£1,697.21
Jersey
71,964
£32,383.80
£49,835.07
£17,451.27
£3,272.11
M.O.D. Defence Vetting
163,960
£73,782.00
£113,542.30
£39,760.30
£7,455.06
Agency
Mersey Tunnels Police
2,510
£1,129.50
£1,738.18
£608.68
£114.13
Ministry of Defence
74,490
£33,520.50
£51,584.33
£18,063.83
£3,386.97
N.C.I.S.
176,313
£79,340.85
£122,096.75
£42,755.90
£8,016.73
N.I.S.
1,632,535
£734,640.75
£1,130,530.49
£395,889.74
£74,229.33
National Air Traffic Services
2,666
£1,199.70
£1,846.21
£646.51
£121.22
44
Ltd
National Crime Squad
45,698
£20,564.10
£31,645.87
£11,081.77
£2,077.83
National Ports Office
19,094
£8,592.30
£13,222.60
£4,630.30
£868.18
NHS Counter Fraud
634
£285.30
£439.05
£153.75
£28.83
Office for Civil Nuclear
27,857
£12,535.65
£19,290.97
£6,755.32
£1,266.62
Security
Office of Fair Trading
921
£414.45
£637.79
£223.34
£41.88
Pensions Regulator
83
£37.35
£57.48
£20.13
£3.77
Police Service of Northern
472,811
£212,764.95
£327,421.62
£114,656.67
£21,498.13
Ireland
Port of Dover Police
13,628
£6,132.60
£9,437.39
£3,304.79
£619.65
Port of Tilbury Police
815
£366.75
£564.39
£197.64
£37.06
Prison Service
323,247
£145,461.15
£223,848.55
£78,387.40
£14,697.64
Probation Service (1 month)
2
£0.90
£1.39
£0.49
£0.09
RAF Provost
1,946
£875.70
£1,347.61
£471.91
£88.48
Royal Mail Security
159,962
£71,982.90
£110,773.69
£38,790.79
£7,273.27
S.C.R.O.
9,501
£4,275.45
£6,579.44
£2,303.99
£432.00
Scottish Drug Enforcement
28,336
£12,751.20
£19,622.68
£6,871.48
£1,288.40
Agency
Service Police Crime Bureau
36,510
£16,429.50
£25,283.18
£8,853.68
£1,660.06
Transport Security
15,598
£7,019.10
£10,801.62
£3,782.52
£709.22
Vehicle and Operator
4,616
£2,077.20
£3,196.58
£1,119.38
£209.88
Services Agency
Others
315,715
£142,071.75
£218,632.64
£76,560.89
£14,355.17
Sub Total
10,164,742
£4,574,133.90
£7,039,083.84
£2,464,949.94
£462,178.11
Total annual PNC costs
£25,964,354.70
recovered
Projected for 2007-2008
£34,714,359.84
Estimated increase
£8,000,005.14
£1,500,000.96
(£8m required)
45
12.3
Appendix 3 – Business Benefits Summary
Research into effectiveness of retaining DNA under the Criminal Justice and
Police Act 2001
The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amended PACE, providing the police in
England and Wales with the power to retain DNA samples and fingerprints, relating to
persons following acquittal at court or other discontinuance of a case.
Definition
The ‘RA’ flag relates to any Database record where the parent PNC record has
been deleted. It has been estimated that roughly 86% of PNC deletions is due
to acquittals.
As of 30th September 2005 the total number of profiles on NDNAD with an ‘RA’ flag
was 284,619. Allowing for a 26% replication rate among acquittals it is estimated that
there are roughly 181,000 DNA profiles on the Database which would have previously
fallen to have been removed.
From these, approximately 8,251 profiles of individuals have been linked
with crime scene stains, involving 13,709 offences. These offences include
109 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 67 sexual offences, 105
aggravated burglaries and 126 of the supply of controlled drugs
(September 2005, NDNAD Custodian Services).
Research into effectiveness of DNA sampling under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
The introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has led to an increase in the number
of DNA profiles held on the National DNA Database (NDNAD). This legislation
amended PACE, providing the police with the power to take DNA (and fingerprints)
from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station.
Since the introduction of the legislation (April 2004), DNA profiles in respect
of 124,347 have been added to the NDNAD. These are persons who have been
arrested and not subsequently charged or cautioned with an offence (PITO,
December 2005). These DNA profiles have linked more than 2,000 persons to
over 3,000 crime scenes. These crimes include; 37 murders, 16 attempted
murders, 90 rapes, 92 drug related offences and 1,136 burglary offences (DNA
& Fingerprint Retention Project, January 2006).
46
12.4
Appendix 4 - Standard Questionnaire Letter and Questionnaire
DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project
Kings Worthy Court
Kings Worthy
Winchester
SO23 7QA
Tel: 023 8045 0991
Fax: 023 8074 5427
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxxxxx.xx
17th January 2006
Dear
The DNA & Fingerprint Retention Project will complete most of its objectives by the end of March this year and draw to a
close. Many of you have been telling us how valuable the Project has been over the last two years in providing support to
your force and your area of business. Your comments have been welcome and are encouraging.
The new Retention Guidelines are scheduled to come into force in April 2006, when the Management of Police Information
guidance (Bichard Guidance) is published; the key RFCs will have been completed by PITO; the powers available under the
Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 and Criminal Justice Act 2003 will have been implemented across England and Wales;
all the current legal challenges will have been successfully defended and the benefits to operational policing will have been
clearly evidenced. The intention has always been to work to a disciplined timetable and it would be wrong to extend the
project even though the work has identified significant gaps in policing.
We are therefore in the process of persuading Government and ACPO that a permanent unit delivering a service that deals
with police information management is essential. This national police information management unit will deal with many
areas you are familiar with and continue to provide the comprehensive support service we have strived to achieve.
We are drawing up a business case, which has provisional support from various Home Office departments and the relevant
ACPO leads.
We recognise that this document should represent your views and evidence the value of the proposals, based upon the service
we have previously provided during the lifetime of the project. We welcome your views about the need for ongoing central
support and coordination, which will form an integral part of the new proposals. All comments will be useful to inform the
recommendations. The feedback will also be used to inform the end of project report.
We hope that by requesting a brief and informative response you can find an opportunity to comment in the relevant section
of this form. Additional information is welcome should you wish to provide it. As always a timely response is helpful and
answers by return, would be appreciated.
We will of course keep you informed of future progress as the proposals are developed.
Yours sincerely,
Gary Linton
Detective Superintendent
DNA & Fingerprint Retention Project
47
DNA & Fingerprint Retention Project Questionnaire
Name
Department
Organisation
Contact number
1. How valuable has the availability of advice Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
provided by the DNA FRP (24/7 telephone support or
e-mail) been to your area of business?
Comment
2. How useful has the documented information Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
provided by the DNA FRP been to your area of
business?
Comment
3. How valuable has an ACPO point of contact been Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
for your organisation or department as provided by the
DNA FRP?
Comment
4. How valuable have negotiations with PITO, Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
conducted by the DNA FRP, been to your area of
business?
Comment
5. How valuable has evidence of operational policing Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
benefits, provided by the DNA FRP, been to your area
of business?
Comment
6. How valuable has the DNA FRP attendance and Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
contribution at specialist meetings been to your area of
business?
Comment
7. How valuable has the DNA FRP support generally Very useful Useful Moderate No value Unknown
been to your area of business?
Comment
48