The review of criminality information; by Sir Ian Magee.
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, often entrusted willingly, and sometimes not, to Government Departments and 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. And 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.
It is immensely important that those at the front line have up to date and adequate information. Think about a police officer stopping a car and not having the information that that person might be dangerous. Or someone being released from custody over one offence, when elsewhere there is information to suggest they should be detained. I am sure that you can all think of your own professional examples – the point is that someone in the system possibly has a piece of information that could help, but that isn’t shared at the key moment.
However, as will become clear in my report, I do acknowledge the counter argument. We all want our personal information to be secure and only to be shared with those who need to see it and then only for legitimate purposes.
So this isn’t a simple ‘either/or’ in my view. There is a balance to be struck. And we need to have more open discussion and debate about that balance, especially when the safety of the public is at stake.
I will make some practical recommendations about the way we go about this that focus on managing the risks of both sharing and not sharing information. I will concentrate on recommendations that are practical and for which there is evidence. The work so far has revealed both positive and negative lessons that can be applied to the collection and sharing of criminality information. We must be sure to learn from them and I will be urging the Government to accept my recommendations for the benefit of public protection and for everyone working in this field.
