YZ, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Rev 1)

An acquittal does not, without more, require deletion of associated police records. It establishes only that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Retention may remain lawful where the controller demonstrates that processing is lawful, fair and necessary for law-enforcement purposes under the Data Protection Act 2018.

Where sensitive processing is involved, the controller must also show strict necessity, satisfaction of a condition in Schedule 8 and an appropriate policy document. A deletion policy may invite an applicant to provide reasons and positive evidence without transferring the statutory burden of demonstrating compliance. Retention of non-conviction information for the 100-year period may be justified where the information remains relevant to safeguarding and crime-prevention risks.

The claimant was acquitted of three counts of raping his former wife. Details of the allegations, the acquittals and other police intelligence remained on the Police National Computer. His application for deletion was refused by the defendant’s records-deletion panel and that decision was upheld on appeal.

In judicial review proceedings, the claimant argued that retention was incompatible with the Data Protection Act 2018, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the applicable police-record deletion guidance. The central issues were whether the defendant had lawfully and fairly assessed retention, whether the processing of sensitive personal data was strictly necessary, and whether retention until the claimant reached 100 years of age was excessive.

1. The claim was dismissed. The defendant’s decision to retain the claimant’s Police National Computer information complied with the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8.
2. The guidance had no statutory force concerning deletion of Police National Computer information and had to be read subject to the 2018 Act. Its encouragement that applicants provide reasons and its reference to positive evidence did not transfer the statutory responsibility for demonstrating compliance from the controller to the applicant. The guidance recognised that acquittal, withdrawal of an allegation or elimination as a suspect did not necessarily establish a basis for deletion.
3. An acquittal means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not, without more, establish that the allegations were false or malicious. The presumption of innocence had no continuing relevance except to prevent a public authority suggesting that the acquitted person ought to have been convicted: R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2.
4. The information concerning racial or ethnic origin, political or religious views and mental health constituted sensitive processing. The statutory requirements were satisfied because retention was strictly necessary for law enforcement and safeguarding the claimant’s former wife and child, a Schedule 8 condition was engaged, and the guidance amounted to an appropriate policy document. Considering the information as a whole, the decision was rational and fair.
5. Retention until the claimant reached 100 years of age was not excessive. The court considered the reasoning concerning the importance of the 100-year rule in R (QSA and others) v National Police Chiefs’ Council [2021] EWHC 272 (Admin), while recognising that the present case concerned non-conviction information. The risk to the claimant’s child and former wife could diminish but could not be said to become insignificant during his lifetime.
6. Retention interfered, or could interfere, with Article 8 rights, but was in accordance with law and pursued the prevention of crime and protection of the rights of others. The claim therefore failed. The parties were invited to submit an agreed draft order and written submissions on consequential matters within 14 days.

First-instance judicial review determination by the High Court (Administrative Court). The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in the same proceedings.