Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Felix125 · 14/08/2023 11:28

You can access other footage by other officers to mark it as evidential.

AnSolas · 14/08/2023 11:43

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 10:15

My decision making process:

If its related to 'the incident or allegation' - its evidence.

Whether its later classed as primary evidence or unused material - its still evidence and has to be disclosed.

Therefore at the point where it is realised that it is part of the 'the incident or allegation' its marked as such and kept.

You have arrested the girl
You decided on what is "evidence"
You are marking the footage from your BWV and that of the other 6 employees as evidence

What is your decision making process around how long the data held in the secure database

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 11:53

If you are marking it as evidential - its permanent.

AnSolas · 14/08/2023 12:37

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 11:53

If you are marking it as evidential - its permanent.

So the police are choosing to store data forever?

The girl is 16, she was arrested for making a "homophobic" remark while drunk and in her own home.
what is the charge which allows the police to hold the evidence for the next 100 years or

  1. has her charge a time limit set by legislation and/or
  2. has her charge a time limit set by the Courts based on the concept of a fair trial (eg is it in the public interest and there should be a reasonable hope of conviction).
Felix125 · 14/08/2023 13:27

She hasn't been 'charged' with anything

The offence will have a time limit set by legislation. But the footage will be stored beyond that time limit.

But BWV is used and stored as 'evidential' for a whole host of things which are not an offence and will not result in a charge of anything and hence are not time limited.

RTA's
Missing from homes
Sudden deaths
Mental Health breakdowns
Suicide attempts
House searches
Open land searches
Fires
etc etc

AnSolas · 14/08/2023 14:08

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 13:27

She hasn't been 'charged' with anything

The offence will have a time limit set by legislation. But the footage will be stored beyond that time limit.

But BWV is used and stored as 'evidential' for a whole host of things which are not an offence and will not result in a charge of anything and hence are not time limited.

RTA's
Missing from homes
Sudden deaths
Mental Health breakdowns
Suicide attempts
House searches
Open land searches
Fires
etc etc

What is the lawful reason for storage of the personal data of a 16 year old on the day after the time limit of the offence runs out?

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 14:57

AnSolas
If there is an appeal or a civil claim or a complaint.

Also depends when the investigation officially commenced - as sometimes that is when it is time barred from.

Also - there may be other offences to consider, wrongful arrest perhaps. The 16 year old may have suffered an injury during the 'arrest' which maybe a ABH - which is not time barred.

AnSolas · 14/08/2023 16:54

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 14:57

AnSolas
If there is an appeal or a civil claim or a complaint.

Also depends when the investigation officially commenced - as sometimes that is when it is time barred from.

Also - there may be other offences to consider, wrongful arrest perhaps. The 16 year old may have suffered an injury during the 'arrest' which maybe a ABH - which is not time barred.

an appeal
By whom and what is a reasonable timeframe for this to happen

a civil claim
By whom and what is a reasonable timeframe for this to happen

a complaint
By whom and what is a reasonable timeframe for this to happen

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 17:03

An appeal, civil claim and a complaint. These can be made by the victim/person involved and the time frame is unlimited.

For example - if the complaint centers around an injury she sustained during the arrest which amounts to ABH type injury - then the prosecution time-frame alone is unlimited in any case.

AnSolas · 14/08/2023 21:12

Felix125 · 14/08/2023 17:03

An appeal, civil claim and a complaint. These can be made by the victim/person involved and the time frame is unlimited.

For example - if the complaint centers around an injury she sustained during the arrest which amounts to ABH type injury - then the prosecution time-frame alone is unlimited in any case.

Cna you watch or copy the footage while marking it as evidence?

What do you mean by "ABH type injury" ?

An appeal,
What would the 16 year old be appealing when the police decide to not act with in the legal time frame to charge her?

A civil claim
Are you are saying that the 16 year old can start a claim against the police for this incident when she is 100 years old?

A complaint.
Are you are saying that the 16 year old can make a complaint against the police in general and/or you (Officer lesbian Nan) for this incident when she is 100 years old?

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 06:29

Can you watch or copy the footage while marking it as evidence?
If you are providing a statement - no

What do you mean by "ABH type injury" ?
Actual Bodily Harm - usually an injury requiring hospital treatment. Something more than a common assault.

An appeal
I was speaking generally - not for this case

A civil claim & A complaint.
In theory - yes

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 07:03

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 06:29

Can you watch or copy the footage while marking it as evidence?
If you are providing a statement - no

What do you mean by "ABH type injury" ?
Actual Bodily Harm - usually an injury requiring hospital treatment. Something more than a common assault.

An appeal
I was speaking generally - not for this case

A civil claim & A complaint.
In theory - yes

Ok so explain the logic

A data officer has access to database using a individual password
The data officer has the ability to mark footage
The police have a data request
The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is distroyed

Why would the police force have a policy of not marking the footage as evidence to prove what happened?

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 07:05

When was the data request made after the incident?

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 07:19

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 07:05

When was the data request made after the incident?

Explain the logic in terms of the DPA

A data officer has access to database using a individual password
The data officer has the ability to mark footage
The police have a data request
The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is distroyed

Why would the police force have a policy of not marking the footage as evidence to prove what happened?

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 10:48

It depends when the footage was asked for. If the incident was reported after the 31 days, then the footage will be overwritten. We can't keep all footage just in case it is asked for - it has to be part of an incident or inquiry for it to be marked as evidential. If Zayna contacted the police after the 31 days, then there is a chance it has gone.

In this case, it appears (or I am assuming) that the footage has been marked as evidential and recorded onto a database. From the database, a set of discs were supplied to Zayna - its some of these discs which may have become corrupted.

So its either an issue with the disc or the footage on the database has become corrupted maybe.

Or it could be a case that a cop or support worker has somehow deleted the footage from the database or corrupted it.

Or it could be that the senior management team have discovered that one of their officers has committed a serious sexual offence whilst in custody and have decided to cover it up completely.

Who knows - we will have to wait for the enquiry to conclude.

twoandcooplease · 15/08/2023 10:59

it could be that the senior management team have discovered that one of their officers has committed a serious sexual offence whilst in custody and have decided to cover it up completely.

@AnSolas you got there in the end - thank you, thank you for breaking it all down to get this. Finally.

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 11:07

I said that right at the start.

Not sure why you went off on John & Jim in a car and what support services Captia have management over.

As I said before - if you are going to state that "...the senior management team have discovered that one of their officers has committed a serious sexual offence whilst in custody and have decided to cover it up completely...." has definitely occurred - then you need to back it up with something.

Otherwise you are just assuming.

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 11:18

Felix125 · 04/08/2023 09:48
If its been deliberately done - then its wrong and people should be sacked/jailed.

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 12:49

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 11:07

I said that right at the start.

Not sure why you went off on John & Jim in a car and what support services Captia have management over.

As I said before - if you are going to state that "...the senior management team have discovered that one of their officers has committed a serious sexual offence whilst in custody and have decided to cover it up completely...." has definitely occurred - then you need to back it up with something.

Otherwise you are just assuming.

We have progressed quite a bit in terms of the DPA.

In this case, it appears (or I am assuming) that the footage has been marked as evidential and recorded onto a database.

we have covered this ^ and have some possible reasons of police failure

From the database, a set of discs were supplied to Zayna - its some of these discs which may have become corrupted.

So breach of duty by failure to supply the data

or the footage on the database has become corrupted maybe.

So breach of duty by failure to store the data

Or it could be a case that a cop or support worker has somehow deleted the footage from the database or corrupted it.

So breach of duty by failure to store the data and failure to prevent unauthorised access and processing

Or it could be that the senior management team have discovered that one of their officers has committed a serious sexual offence whilst in custody and have decided to cover it up completely.

So breach of duty by failure to store the data and failure to prevent unauthorised access and/or processing and failure around staff management

Anyway, how about answering the following question:

The footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to distroy the original data.

1) Do you agree or disagree this is a factual statement.
1.1 agree
or
1.2 disagree

You may not type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options may not type anything

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 13:22

A breach by who though - the police or Capita or the software company?

Anyway, how about answering the following question:
**
1.2

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 13:27

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 13:22

A breach by who though - the police or Capita or the software company?

Anyway, how about answering the following question:
**
1.2

Explain the logic in terms of the DPA

A data officer has access to database using a individual password
The data officer has the ability to mark footage
The police have a data request
The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is distroyed

Why would the police force have a policy of not marking the footage as evidence to prove what happened?

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 13:58

How do you know that the "....data officer has not marked the data...."

Where is you logic in suggesting that "...the police force have a policy of not marking the footage as evidence to prove what happened?"

When was the data request made? Was it after the 31 days from the incident?

Anyway - the logic in answering the question "...the footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to destroy the original data..."

Where is you evidence to say it's not a technical issue?
Where is you evidence to say that the police have deliberately destroyed it?

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 14:26

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 13:58

How do you know that the "....data officer has not marked the data...."

Where is you logic in suggesting that "...the police force have a policy of not marking the footage as evidence to prove what happened?"

When was the data request made? Was it after the 31 days from the incident?

Anyway - the logic in answering the question "...the footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to destroy the original data..."

Where is you evidence to say it's not a technical issue?
Where is you evidence to say that the police have deliberately destroyed it?

My questions are about how your UK based employer has carried out its legal obligation under the DPA to train its employees.

If you have received appropiate DP training you would be in a position to answer these questions

A data officer has access to database using a individual password
The data officer has the ability to mark footage
The police have a data request
The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is distroyed by being overwritten.

Why would the police force have a policy of not marking the footage destroying the data by overwriting if it is evidence to prove what happened

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 14:56

A data officer has access to database using a individual password - yes
The data officer has the ability to mark footage - yes
The police have a data request - yes, but we don't know when that was received

The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
No. The civil claim or complaint can be made prior to any footage being released or asked for. They don't have to wait for the footage to make a complaint. They can make a complaint that they have been attacked immediately after leaving custody.

The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is destroyed by being overwritten.
You're assuming they have not marked the data. The data could have been marked by the officer and its a technical issues which has caused the footage to become corrupted on the database. So that would be down to Capita or the software company or a third party if it has been subject to a cyber attack. The fact that Zayna was given a copy of the footage sometime after the incident suggest that the original footage was marked as evidential.

Why would the police force have a policy of destroying the data by overwriting if it is evidence to prove what happened.
They don't have such a policy. But the footage needs to have a reason for marking it as evidential during the first 31 days - after this time it is overwritten if not marked as evidential.

For example, if Zayna has made a complaint/report to the police 35 days after the incident, there is a good chance the original footage will have been overwritten - as prior to this, the police would be unaware of any incident occurring.

AnSolas · 15/08/2023 16:22

Felix125 · 15/08/2023 14:56

A data officer has access to database using a individual password - yes
The data officer has the ability to mark footage - yes
The police have a data request - yes, but we don't know when that was received

The logical reason says are that once the footage is provided that a civil claim or complaint is possible
No. The civil claim or complaint can be made prior to any footage being released or asked for. They don't have to wait for the footage to make a complaint. They can make a complaint that they have been attacked immediately after leaving custody.

The data officer has not marked the data and as a result of that choice the data is destroyed by being overwritten.
You're assuming they have not marked the data. The data could have been marked by the officer and its a technical issues which has caused the footage to become corrupted on the database. So that would be down to Capita or the software company or a third party if it has been subject to a cyber attack. The fact that Zayna was given a copy of the footage sometime after the incident suggest that the original footage was marked as evidential.

Why would the police force have a policy of destroying the data by overwriting if it is evidence to prove what happened.
They don't have such a policy. But the footage needs to have a reason for marking it as evidential during the first 31 days - after this time it is overwritten if not marked as evidential.

For example, if Zayna has made a complaint/report to the police 35 days after the incident, there is a good chance the original footage will have been overwritten - as prior to this, the police would be unaware of any incident occurring.

Which is it

  1. The police had the data then received an data request, then supplied a copy and still have the original data Or
  2. The police had the data then received an data request, then supplied a copy and now no longer have the original data
Swipe left for the next trending thread