Jump to content

Police appeal for potential boater witnesses at Whaley Bridge


nine9feet

Featured Posts

CRT can contact the owners of the boats without giving the police their details, so that the boaters themselves can make a decision.

Assisting the police in finding potential witnesses who might not know the police need to speak to them and who may be keen to help is not the same as shopping someone!!

I wonder if CRT have contacted out Trojan ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not exactly the same scenario for which Police carry out house to house enquiries in the vicinity of a crime?

 

 

No. It's not the same.

 

You're right that it's the police's duty to make enquiries, so calling round boats moored nearby, as part of "house to house" to ask if anyone had seen or heard anything, would be fine. But, presumably the named boats are not around any more.

 

 

 

Don't think that is correct.

 

 

Which bit is incorrect?

 

 

 

CRT can contact the owners of the boats without giving the police their details, so that the boaters themselves can make a decision.

 

 

Depends what CRT did. If CRT agreed to act as informants for the police, they would probably fall foul of the Data Protection Act. If they simply agreed to forward the request for witnesses to the owners of all boats named "XXXXX", that would probably be OK. The analogy would be with a "house to house" where, when the police call, they ask that their request for witnesses to a particular incident is passed on to other occupants of the house.

 

 

 

I fail to see why helping with an appeal is frowned upon by some on this forum.

 

 

I hope that nothing I've said suggests that I frown on helping the police. If I had been moored at Whaley Bridge that night, and had seen or heard anything which might relate to the incident, I would call the DC and tell her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Depends what CRT did. If CRT agreed to act as informants for the police, they would probably fall foul of the Data Protection Act. If they simply agreed to forward the request for witnesses to the owners of all boats named "XXXXX", that would probably be OK. The analogy would be with a "house to house" where, when the police call, they ask that their request for witnesses to a particular incident is passed on to other occupants of the house.

 

 

I think when you signed your terms and conditions you said you were happy for them to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you signed your terms and conditions you said you were happy for them to do that.

 

Yes, I accepted the licence terms. By doing so, I have given my consent for personal details to be disclosed, in certain specific circumstances.

 

7.8 says I agree that CRT may provide relevant personal details to any person who has a reasonable interest in an incident or alleged incident involving the boat.

 

7.9 says I agree that where they believe I have breached licence conditions, CRT may exchange information relating to me and/or the boat with third parties who are assisting them in managing that breach.

 

I can't see that either of those clauses apply to the owners of boats moored at Whaley Bridge on 23rd Sept. The incident under investigation did not involve either boat or owner and there is no suggestion that licence terms or conditions were breached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bit I marked in red!

 

Personal data held by CRT is covered by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

s.29 specifies the exemptions to the basic principle - that personal data can only be processed for the purposes specified when it was collected.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29

 

The DPA exemptions on which the police usually rely when requesting data are 1(a) - the prevention or detection of crime and 1(B) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. A request citing these exemptions can often bamboozle a data controller into disclosing the data without checking that the exemptions actually apply to the requested data.

 

It would be stretching the definitions in s.29 to breaking point to say that the personal details of the owners of boats seen moored nearby during an incident which was not itself a crime, was necessary to achieve either 1(a) or 1(B), so I would expect a data controller to refuse such a request. If the police believe that s.29 entitles them to have the data, they can apply for a court order.

 

That's just my opinion, based on my understanding of the DPA. If you want the opinion of a lawyer, here is a solicitor's blog where the nuances of police requests for personal data are discussed. http://www.bto.co.uk/blog/data-controllers-%E2%80%93-how-to-deal-with-a-police-data-request.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No. It's not the same.

 

You're right that it's the police's duty to make enquiries, so calling round boats moored nearby, as part of "house to house" to ask if anyone had seen or heard anything, would be fine. But, presumably the named boats are not around any more.

 

I rather fail to see the difference that you seem to be referring to. Just because our 'houses' move doesn't mean that the Police don't have every right or duty to try to trace us if we may be a witness to a crime. In your quote below you accept that prevention or detection of crime is a valid exemption from the DPA.

 

 

Personal data held by CRT is covered by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

s.29 specifies the exemptions to the basic principle - that personal data can only be processed for the purposes specified when it was collected.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29

 

The DPA exemptions on which the police usually rely when requesting data are 1(a) - the prevention or detection of crime and 1(cool.png the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. A request citing these exemptions can often bamboozle a data controller into disclosing the data without checking that the exemptions actually apply to the requested data.

 

It would be stretching the definitions in s.29 to breaking point to say that the personal details of the owners of boats seen moored nearby during an incident which was not itself a crime, was necessary to achieve either 1(a) or 1(cool.png, so I would expect a data controller to refuse such a request. If the police believe that s.29 entitles them to have the data, they can apply for a court order.

 

That's just my opinion, based on my understanding of the DPA. If you want the opinion of a lawyer, here is a solicitor's blog where the nuances of police requests for personal data are discussed. http://www.bto.co.uk/blog/data-controllers-%E2%80%93-how-to-deal-with-a-police-data-request.aspx

I would suggest that this is quite a large assumption. Unless you were witness to the incident how do you know it was not a crime? Were the couple swearing at each other? (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 "......A person is guilty of an offence if he....uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour....within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.....), so there is no innate right to behave like an *rse in the street. If any threats were made then we have either Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 or Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, both of which are crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather fail to see the difference that you seem to be referring to. Just because our 'houses' move doesn't mean that the Police don't have every right or duty to try to trace us if we may be a witness to a crime. In your quote below you accept that prevention or detection of crime is a valid exemption from the DPA.

 

The police have a duty to investigate and that will involve trying to find witnesses. They also have certain powers which they can use, but that doesn't extend to them having the 'right' to access personal data about anyone they want, whenever they want.

 

In a "house to house", the police don't need to and usually won't know who the owners or occupants are beforehand. That would be the same in the case of the owners/occupants of the boats which were moored near to the incident. If they hadn't moved, or if the police knew where the boats had moved to, they could do a "boat to boat" on exactly the same basis. But that is not the situation being described here. The boats have moved, but the police don't know where they are. To trace someone who may have been aboard in order to speak to them, they would first need to obtain the names and other personal data of the boats' owners. That's the difference.

 

The question is whether CRT can lawfully disclose that data to the police officer who is investigating the incident.

 

 

I would suggest that this is quite a large assumption.

 

Yes it is an assumption, based on the description of the incident in the linked article which doesn't mention threats, abuse or disorder.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the incident is being investigated as a suspected Public Order offence. Would that necessarily make it lawful for CRT to disclose the personal data of boats' owners? Absent of anything which connects the boats to the incident or evidence that there was someone on the boat who would have seen/heard something, I would still say no.

 

The DPA is intended to ensure that personal/sensitive data is not misused, so there is a duty on the data controller not to disclose to a third party, even where that third party is a police officer doing his/her job of preventing/detecting crime or apprehending offenders. The fact he/she is doing that job, does not allow them to use the exemptions in the DPA to obtain whatever data they want, without a warrant or court order. The exemptions in s.29(3) for the purposes in s.29(1) apply to the processing of the data. The police have to be able to show the reason why the processing of the data being requested is necessary for the crime to be investigated, i.e. that non-disclosure would prejudice the detection of a crime. Otherwise the DPA ceases to offer any protection at all to the police trawling sources of personal data as and when they like.

 

I'm sure the police know the limits of s.29 when it comes to requesting personal data about potential witnesses. They can't simply say to CRT: "I am investigating a crime and would like to have the personal details of the owners of all boats named XXXX because they may have been moored at Whaley Bridge that night, there may have been people aboard and they may have witnessed something." What is stated is far too tenuous a link between the data and the suspected crime.

 

Which is why they have made a public announcement that they would like to speak to the owners of any, and in particular the named boats, which were moored at Whaley Bridge on the 23rd Sept, rather than ask CRT for the names and addresses of the owners of all boats with those names.

Edited by NilesMI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes it is an assumption, based on the description of the incident in the linked article which doesn't mention threats, abuse or disorder.

 

On the dark side it mentions guns.http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/9314-police-want-tointerview-boaters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...............................................

 

Which is why they have made a public announcement that they would like to speak to the owners of any, and in particular the named boats, which were moored at Whaley Bridge on the 23rd Sept, rather than ask CRT for the names and addresses of the owners of all boats with those names.

It is also possible that they asked CRT for the information and CRT refused, hence a more general request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The question is whether CRT can lawfully disclose that data to the police officer who is investigating the incident.

 

 

All interesting stuff. I'd have expected that they could, similar to the way they have access to a motor vehicle keeper's details via DVLA. Do you happen to know why there's a difference Niles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All interesting stuff. I'd have expected that they could, similar to the way they have access to a motor vehicle keeper's details via DVLA. Do you happen to know why there's a difference Niles?

 

If there was an incident involving a boat, anyone with a legitimate interest could ask CRT for the licensee's details and it would be lawful for CRT to disclose that information. By agreeing to the CRT license terms, you have given your consent, in that circumstance. So no real difference there between CRT and DVLA with an incident involving a motor vehicle.

 

Otherwise, access to the DVLA registered keeper details is done on a case by case basis, with the DVLA using the same critera as CRT would use to determine whether the disclosure of registered keeper data would be lawful, e.g. that to not disclose it would prejudice the investigation of a crime. So no difference there, either.

 

But. There is a regulation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/regulation/27/madewhich allows any details contained in the DVLA register, including keeper data, to be made available for use by the police, or a local authority for the purpose of investigating an offence, or anyone else who can show a reasonable cause, on payment of a fee. There is no equivalent regulation relating to CRT.

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/dvla/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems quite sure there where

 

In the same column, criticizing a CRT stoppage notice as "one of the stupidest", Victor also seems sure that T&M is only navigable by boats up to 70' length between Derwent Mouth and Shardlow.

 

Maybe Victor was off sick from journalism school on the day they did fact-checking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.