Date: 28 June 2010
Why does the National Public Order Intelligence Unit hold information about lawful protesters on their database?
On Thursday 24 June 2010, Rob Evans from the Guardian rang the NCDE press office to ask why the National Public Order Intelligence Unit held information on lawful protesters such as John and Linda Catts.
The basis of the query was a number of documents released via a Data Protection Act request which contained details of the Catts and their attendance at demonstrations.
Anton Setchell - the National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism provided the Guardian with background information and a comment:
Background information
The priority of the police service has always been the safety of the public and to prevent crime and disorder; legislation both requires us and also enables us to do this.
To be able to make effective assessments about the nature and severity of any risks and threats, the police rely on information and intelligence, legislation also sets out what information we should collect and how we should retain it. Statutory regulations under the Management of Police Information code of practice require the police to collect information for policing purposes which are described as protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences, bringing offenders to justice or any duty or responsibility of the police arising from common or statute law, Human Rights law is there to ensure that we collect information in a way that does not disproportionately intrude into a person's privacy.
For several years now, there have been on -going protests and demonstrations against an arms company in Brighton, most of these have been lawful and peaceful, but some have been violent and disorderly leading to large numbers of arrests. The police have therefore needed to monitor and record these events which may include noting who was present, this has been done in an overt and visible manner. The police then need to consider for how long they will retain the information; in many cases after protest events, it is discarded almost immediately after the event, but in others we will need to retain it to help us make effective risk assessments in the future and also to comply with a number of laws.
If violence and disorder becomes a feature of a regular protest event as it has in this case, our need to retain the information for longer periods will increase. When considering the retention period, all forces have to comply with other relevant legislation including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act; we also take into account the requirements of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996, the Limitation Act 1980, and the Bichard Enquiry recommendations 2004. To focus exclusively on one piece of legislation or guidance could lead to non-compliance with another and make our assessment processes less effective and therefore increase risk to the public.
Comment from ACC Anton Setchell, National Coordinator of Domestic Extremism
For several years, there have been on-going protests and demonstrations against an arms company in Brighton, most of which have been lawful and peaceful, but some have been violent and disorderly leading to large numbers of arrests. The police have therefore needed to monitor and record these events which may include noting who was present, this has been done in an overt and visible manner.
A small number of people who have only ever conducted themselves in a lawful manner and have not been convicted of any offences will have their names recorded alongside others at protest events. Linda and John Catt fall into this category - they have been present at some events where violent disorder has taken place and where many people have been arrested, but our information states very clearly that they have not been responsible for any of it.
Details of individuals are recorded because they are witnesses to acts of criminality or anti-social behaviour. The information recorded is used to identify those who have committed criminal acts and to eliminate from enquires, those who are not at fault. Simply recording a person's details does not imply that the individual is guilty of incidents of criminality.
If an individual has their details recorded on several occasions this is likely to be because those individuals have attended several events where violent disorder has occurred.
When we have been asked by Mr and Ms Catt what information we hold, we have provided it fully to them; we have pointed out that under the Durant case 2003 (under Data Protection Act) it did not fully meet the description of 'personal data' and under that interpretation we were not legally obliged to disclose any of it, but in the interests of transparency we wanted them to see that there is nothing sinister in what we hold and that we are doing so in full compliance with the law and for lawful policing purposes. We hold a single photo of Mr and Ms Catt for identification purposes and we are required, by law, to retain much of this information for either six years in some cases and seven in others.
None of the information has been obtained in a covert way and none of it intrudes into their privacy; it is not information that could be used in prosecuting them for anything, it simply helps the police to do their job effectively. Collecting the right information helps the police to protect democracy and lawful protest, not erode it. Only a very small number of properly trained and vetted police officers would have access to this information and it is treated with discretion always.
You can find other media reponses by clicking this link.
