Turner, R. v

A police officer who accesses confidential police records for personal purposes commits a grave breach of trust. The misuse is especially serious where information is passed to known criminals. Deterrence is crucial because access to police systems is deliberate and depends on public confidence in the integrity of confidential information.

Even where actual harm is limited and substantial personal mitigation exists, immediate custody will generally be required unless the wrongdoing is truly minimal. On a review of an unduly lenient sentence, the court must consider subsequent custody, compliance with community requirements and time at liberty. Those matters may affect the sentence ultimately imposed, but do not justify suspending a sentence where deterrence requires immediate custody.

The offender, then a serving police officer, pleaded guilty to two counts of misconduct in a public office and one count of conspiracy to defraud. Over an extended period he repeatedly accessed police computer records without authority, sometimes using other officers’ log-in details, and passed confidential information to criminal associates. He also assisted an associate to adopt a false name to open a bank account and used its debit card.

At Birmingham Crown Court, His Honour Judge Howard Morrison QC imposed twelve months’ imprisonment suspended, with supervision and unpaid work. The Attorney General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to review the sentence as unduly lenient. The issue was whether suspension properly reflected the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence.

1. The application was allowed. The suspended sentence was unduly lenient. There was no sufficient justification for suspending imprisonment for a serving police officer’s persistent and deliberate misuse of confidential police information ([32]-[34]).

2. Police records are confidential and are supplied to officers only to enable them to serve the public. Their misuse for personal purposes is always very serious. It is a gross breach of trust, particularly where information is passed to known criminals. The court endorsed the deterrent sentencing approach in R v Kasim [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 12 and Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 2007 [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 86. Unless the wrongdoing is truly minimal, severe punishment is required despite substantial mitigation ([29]-[31]).

3. The offender had repeatedly accessed records, concealed his activity by using another officer’s credentials, and provided information to criminal associates. Although he had not sold the information, no police operation was compromised, and the actual damage was relatively limited, the offending remained grave. The separate bank fraud was deliberate dishonesty for financial benefit ([31]-[32]).

4. The court allowed for the 137 days spent on remand, work performed under the community order, and the period spent at liberty after sentence. Nevertheless, those matters did not justify continued suspension. The court removed the suspension and imposed twelve months’ imprisonment, with credit for remand custody. The offender was required to surrender the following day ([33]-[36]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the suspended sentence unduly lenient, and imposed immediate imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 13 July 2009, His Honour Judge Howard Morrison QC imposed twelve months’ imprisonment suspended, with supervision and unpaid work, following guilty pleas to misconduct in a public office and conspiracy to defraud.