Looks like it has been watered-down rather than binned entirely.
Did the previous system cover all EA2010 Protected Characteristics or just the five "Monitored Strands"?
Non-crime terminology
2.16 Non-crime terminology should be used to refer to the parties involved in a non-crime incident (for example, ‘complainant’ for the person making the report and ‘subject’ for the party being complained about). Trivial, malicious, or irrational
2.17 A non-crime hate incident must not be recorded if the complaint is trivial, malicious or irrational, and a hate and prejudice qualifier should not be added to the record in these instances. For example, if there is no evidence to support the perception of the complainant – or any other person – that the incident is motivated by hostility against a monitored strand or protected characteristic, a non-crime hate incident must not be recorded.
(my bolding)
Page 11
Personal data may only be recorded where the incident:
> ‘presents a real risk of significant harm to individuals with a particular characteristic(s) and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s)’.
> If the incident does not reach this additional threshold, the personal data of the subject should not be recorded. Where the personal data of the subject has already been recorded, it should be deleted.
> When making a record about a non-crime incident, call takers should always use non-crime terminology for the parties involved, such as ‘complainant’ and ‘subject’ (do not use ‘victim’ or ‘suspect’). Seek advice from Duty Silver if required
Page 17
When the personal data of the subject has been recorded and they are identified, they should be notified that a complaint has been made and should be given a right to reply. The only exception is if there is a reasonable belief that such a notification could present a safeguarding risk to the complainant. Following review, the incident record should be updated accordingly, in order to:
> confirm or remove a hate and prejudice qualifier, as appropriate
> update and close an incident that has been identified as trivial, irrational or malicious
> remove hate and prejudice qualifiers where they have been added in error, or where the facts do not justify the addition of a qualifier
> delete personal data where no lawful basis for retaining it exists.
Page 19
Step five – retention of police information
Officers and staff must retain, review and dispose of records, including personal data, in line with all relevant legislative and regulatory requirements. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Management of Police Information (MoPI) Code of Practice 2005
- UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018
- The Human Rights Act 1998
The maximum period for retention prior to review is six years.
See also Management of police information.
Managing existing records of non-crime hate incidents
2.32 Where records do exist and if in any context they are discovered, particular care should be taken to review the record before considering disclosure. Examples may include general policing enquiries, an enhanced criminal record certificate or when a person makes a subject access request (SAR).
Reviewing existing records
2.33 Where an existing non-crime hate incident record is identified during any process, the record should be reviewed to consider whether it should exist (consider Step four – review in the process for recording non-crime incidents).
2.34 If the record has been made or retained inappropriately when applying this guidance, it should be deleted and discounted for all other purposes.
2.35 If it is considered that the record should exist, where the record is being considered for disclosure – including a subject access request or enhanced criminal record certificate – the appropriate guidance for those processes should be followed. See also Statutory disclosure and barring provisions.
2.36 The subject of an enhanced criminal record certificate may have the opportunity to make representations against disclosure during the disclosure process. They also have access to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) dispute process and a right of appeal through the Independent Monitor for Disclosure and Barring. For more information, see Statutory disclosure and barring provisions and Report a problem about a criminal record check or barring decision.
Page 20 - 21
Malicious calls
2.57 For the purposes of the NSIR, a malicious call is classed as a hoax call.
2.58 Some people may be motivated by malice, and may try to distort the truth and misuse the reporting and recording process in order to target individuals or communities. Malicious calls may be more likely to target those engaged in political speeches or legitimate debate on potentially controversial subjects because they have a public platform. Callers may do this to further an ideological (or other) agenda or will seek to undermine the efforts of authorities to uphold the rights of others. Some reports are intended to promote bigotry that they purport to be complaining about.
Page 25
Responding to non-crime hate incidents
3.1 Not all incidents that are perceived by the complainant as being motivated by hostility should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. A record should only be made where it meets the requirements set out in Recording non-crime incidents perceived by the reporting person to be motivated by hostility.
3.2 When considering the proportionate response to a non-crime hate incident, officers and staff should first consider whether the incident meets the threshold for recording the personal data of the subject of the complaint.
3.3 Under the Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (‘the Code’), the personal data about the subject should only be recorded where the incident: 'presents a real risk of significant harm to individuals with a particular characteristic(s) and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s)'.
3.4 Non-crime hate incidents that do not meet the recording threshold, and that do not include the personal data of the subject, will rarely require a call for service or further investigation.
3.5 However, these incidents should not be dismissed as unimportant. They can still cause distress to complainants and communities, and forces should ensure that the circumstances of the incident are recorded without the personal data of the subject, so that intelligence can be developed and monitored. Non-crime hate incidents may be the precursor to more serious or escalating incidents.
3.6 An incident may form part of a series of incidents that, together, may constitute a crime (such as harassment). A retrospective review of crimes will often highlight earlier non-crime hate incidents that could have presented opportunities to intervene to reduce threat, risk and harm.
3.7 Where there is a real risk of significant harm to individuals with a particular characteristic(s) and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s), a record should be made and should include the personal data of the subject.
3.8 Although police officers have limited enforcement powers to intervene in non-crime incidents, they do have a general duty with statutory partners under the Equality Act 2010. See Partnership working.
3.9 Some incidents would amount to a criminal offence if committed in public, but not if they occur in a private dwelling – for example, some public order offences. A complainant is likely to suffer the same harm, regardless of the location. Where appropriate, complainants should be referred to appropriate support services. See Victim and witness care and support.
3.10 Forces should ensure that information on non-crime hate incidents is analysed so that preventive activity can take place, identified community tensions can be monitored, and activity can be implemented to reduce tensions or potential harm.
Page 26 -27
https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-public/2023-03/Recording-and-retention-of-non-crime-hate-incidents-APP-consultation.pdf
----
I should get on and do the survey!
https://www.college.police.uk/article/recording-non-crime-hate-incidents-have-your-say