Those who are acquitted of criminal charges are often told that they can leave court without a blemish on their character. However, as a High Court case showed, a not guilty verdict does not necessarily entitle them to have their files on the Police National Computer (PNC) wiped clean.
The case concerned a man who was acquitted of three charges of raping his then wife. He later applied to the Records Deletion Unit (RDU) of a police force to have removed from the PNC personal data relating to him, together with records of the investigation, charges and trial. The application was declined and he was informed that the information would be retained on the PNC until he was deemed to have reached the age of 100.
Challenging that decision, he argued that retention of the information – including details concerning his racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs and mental health – violated the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018 together with his fundamental human right to respect for his privacy and family life.
Dismissing his complaints, however, the Court rejected arguments that the fact of his acquittal amounted to evidence that his ex-wife’s allegations against him were false and malicious. Given the not guilty verdicts, the presumption of innocence had no further relevance to his case, save that it prohibited the force or any other public authority from suggesting that he should have been convicted.
It was strictly necessary to retain the information for law enforcement purposes and to safeguard his ex-wife and the child of the relationship from any threat he might pose to them. Retention of details concerning his religious beliefs and political opinions was rational and fair given concerns about possible extremism.
Retaining the information until he was deemed to have become a centenarian was justified on the facts of the case. Although the risk he might pose to his ex-wife and child was likely to diminish with time, it could not be said that it would dwindle to the point of insignificance during his lifetime.
Also rejecting his human rights arguments, the Court found that retention of the information was in accordance with the law and in the interests of preventing crime or the protection of others, namely his ex-wife and child.