WAPI News
WAPI REPLIES TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S DEMAND TO EXPEL/DENY
MEMBERSHIP TO THOSE CAUTIONED OR CONVICTED
OF SECTION 55 OF THE DPA OFFENCES
29th September, 2006.
Your ref: Z0065/LT
Lee Taylor Esq.
Guidance and Promotion Officer
Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Dear Mr Taylor
I refer to your letter dated the 6th September, 2006, in which you
indicate that the Information Commissioner wishes to see our Association
put in place a "clear statement" on accepting membership applications
from, or to terminate membership of any person who has been cautioned
or convicted of an offence contrary to section 55 of the DPA.
On the basis of your letter, I invited our membership and the membership
of the eGroup "UK2" to respond to the questions outlined as
follows:
a) Should any person cautioned for a breach of the DPA s. 55 be denied
membership, or have their membership terminated.
b) Should any person convicted for a breach of the DPA s. 55 be denied
membership, or have their membership terminated.
Of a total UK Membership (UK2 & WAPI) of 600, we received a response
from 59 - approx 10%
Of these, the consensus was as follows:
Cautions: Membership should not be cancelled on the basis of a "Caution"
Convictions: Membership should be terminated/declined under the existing
WAPI ethical code - with a Right to Appeal to the Governing Council
on the basis of Public Interest or Prevention and/or Detection of Crime.
The point that Membership will be terminated will be deemed to be at
the determination of any pending Appeal.
There were a number of concerns expressed by the Contributors, which
I have narrowed down as follows:
a) A Caution is open to misuse inasmuch as it
is often used to entice an Accused to avoid a Prosecution.
b) THE WHOLE ISSUE OF DENYING ACCESS TO PERSONAL
DATA IS DETRIMENTAL TO GOOD ORDER IN SOCIETY, it protects the criminal
element at the expense of the victims of crime and tort.
c) The concept of jailing PI's who breach DPA
for the sole purpose of tracking down Offenders on behalf of Victims,
is both unacceptable and contrary to natural justice. Whilst at the
same time, the Courts are being instructed to release back into Society
criminals convicted of serious offences, including theft, violence and
sexual offences due to insufficient prison facilities, it is totally
unacceptable to seek to jail those, who in the main are performing a
useful and often vital role in the application of due process.
d) WAPI commenced life as an Association of Investigators,
both Private and Law Enforcement, and the acceptance of applications
was based on the licensing criteria. The SIA have still not commenced
the regulation of this Sector, which may under the eventual criteria
deny a licence to those convicted of a relevant
offence. It is for Government to apply - and should not be for a Trade
Association to determine which offences are relevant
- The IC is now requiring WAPI to apply a more stringent test for Membership!
The SIA - Relevant
Convictions - WAPI - All Cautions/Convictions
The rigid application of s. 55 in many instances prevents Victims from
tracking and prosecuting those who have committed offences. For example,
how ludicrous is it that we can lawfully determine the owner/proprietor
of a given property, yet we are denied access to the details of the
owner/keeper of a given motor vehicle.
It is, in my submission, a more important Issue to have the DPA amended
to provide either a Statutory Defense to s. 55 Breaches of "Lawful
Excuse or Authority" thereby applying a sensible control in terms
of minimising prosecutions where it can be clearly demonstrated that
the purpose of access was to prevent or detect crimes and/or was necessary
for due process - i.e. to trace a Defendant in Legal Proceedings for
Service, or a vital Witness in a criminal case.
A facility needs to be introduced to require a Data Controller to release
personal data held when such data is deemed vital in either of the mentioned
situations. If the Police were refused important information which prevented
the locating and/arrest of a suspect in a criminal matter, there would
be a criminal offence of obstruction or perversion, and similar procedures
need to be applied in the instance of Civil Proceedings.
To conclude, the entire Governing Council of WAPI confirm that we are
totally committed to compliance with all law and regulation, and we
will do our part in co-operating with the statutory authorities in this
respect. We are however, more concerned at the application of the DPA
in the targeting and prosecuting of our Sector whilst the increase in
crime through fraud & identity theft continues to soar. It is time
for the IC to press Parliament for lawful access to Data in appropriate
situations, rather than attempting to apply more stringent penalties
on "soft targets - Investigators" whilst the Government is
minimising the penalties for the "real" criminals in our society.
Kind regards
Ian (D. Withers)
Chairman
The letter from the Office of the Information Commissioner
Ref: Z0065/LT
6th September, 2006
Dear Mr. Withers
What price privacy? The unlawful trade in confidential personal information
Thank you for your letter to Richard Thomas dated 20th June 2006 about
the above report. In the letter you indicate that the governing council
of the association will be considering the call by Mr Thomas that WAPI
should make a clear statement that it will expel any member cautioned
or convicted under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
We hope to be able to publish the follow up report in November and so
it would be helpful to know WAPI's decision on Mr Thomas' recommendation
by the end of September so that your stance can be properly reflected
in the report in addition to the comments that you have already provided
us with.
Yours sincerely
Lee Taylor
Guidance and promotion Officer.
Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Quick links > Home > Member
Services > WAPI news
|
