Sir Ian Magee writes about his role in reviewing the issue of Criminality Information.
The independent Review of Criminality Information (ROCI) is examining how information is recorded, used and shared in the interests of public protection.
Criminality information is any information which may be relevant to the prevention, investigation, prosecution or penalising of crime. The review will make recommendations which aim to improve the safety of the public and increase the efficiency of the whole public protection system. To find out more about this review follow the link:
http://www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/review-criminality-information/
Public Concerns
Information sharing between organisations is (understandably) subject to scrutiny by a sceptical and concerned public. People are concerned about the safety of their personal data that they have entrusted willingly, though sometimes not, to Government Departments, Agencies and other public bodies.
However, there have been many examples in the last few years where information about criminals and criminality doesn’t appear to have been shared between organisations. If information isn’t shared, with all the proper safeguards, then the public can be at risk. Clearly, there are difficult, important, and interesting issues of balance and proportionality, which is why I agreed to undertake a Review of Criminality Information, due to be published soon.
Others have looked before at particular incidents or areas of information sharing and made important recommendations – Sir Michael Bichard’s Soham Enquiry is probably the most high-profile. My task, though, is to look at the whole picture to see if we can make the overall ‘system’ work better – including in our contacts with other countries.
My view is that more information in the field of criminality can and should be shared, with appropriate security and respect for privacy. But this isn’t straightforward.
When the loss of the HMRC data discs and similar incidents came to light, Government’s perfectly understandable reaction has been to tighten up security and look hard at information sharing. However, from the Soham or the Lincolnshire murders, we know that when information isn’t shared appropriately there can be serious consequences. And the Suffolk murders have reopened a debate about expanding the DNA database.
It is my job to try to make sense of this and to come up with recommendations. In my review I am examining both sides – mitigating public risk as well as managing information.
I strongly believe that people at the sharp delivery end of our public services need to be better supported by information to be able to do their jobs. It is my hope that my review will highlight where improvements can be made so that professionals can be better enabled to do their jobs. Some people may be confused by the legal consequences of sharing information. Moreover, they are not always helped by the technology available and don’t always get the right information at the right time.
