Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for raising this important issue again. However, it is an entirely different amendment to the one that she moved in July, and I will come to that in a moment. We share her desire to see these matters addressed, but are clear that the route to ensuring the proper use and retention of photographs is not more legislation, but compliance with the statutory framework that already exists. Without going into the details of the Data Protection Act, or the management of police information guidelines, surely the key principles are that the police, or any public authority, need to be very clear about the purposes and reasons for which they are taking, retaining and storing images of any individual—protester or otherwise—and that they need to justify those reasons. Proposed new article 3.4(a), contained in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment states: ""Where an officer takes a photograph or photographs of an individual who has not been arrested, those photographs must be destroyed as soon as possible, but at the latest within 14 days of the day on which the photograph was taken"." Is it seriously being suggested that the law should be changed so that whatever the circumstances, a photograph of someone who has not been arrested within 14 days after the photograph was taken should be destroyed? If so, that would be a fantastic advantage to those who have committed criminal offences—they would be mad not to hide themselves away for 14, or 15, days, because, if they had not been arrested by that stage, the photographs that might well be valuable identification evidence against them would have to be destroyed. It is completely irresponsible to suggest that this amendment be implemented and become the law of the land. Although there is every justification in broad terms for bringing this subject back, this part of the amendment would lead to absolute chaos. Anyone who was guilty of an offence, where the evidence of identification was the photograph, could simply escape justice by avoiding being arrested for 15 days. That would be an absurd piece of law, which would mean that many criminals would escape justice for no good reason at all. The police may need to retain images for longer than 14 days for a variety of reasons: for evidential purposes, of course; the photographs may be of assistance in responding to complaints that are made against them or others; for legal challenges, or to tackle criminal activity. The retention of photographs is important for the complaints system. If we consider the G20 protests, the Independent Police Complaints Commission will have examined images taken by the Metropolitan Police when investigating complaints. Surely the noble Baroness and others would support retention of those images by the police, to ensure that any complaints were properly dealt with, but if the person involved had not been arrested within 14 days, those photographs would have to be destroyed forthwith. That on its own would be a reason for opposing this amendment. While the current legislative framework acknowledges the need for retention, it does not allow police to retain information without valid reason. It comes down to proper guidance and training, to ensuring that officers understand the guidance, and leadership to ensure that officers have this training. ACPO is already committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed in revised guidance that also picks up wider lessons from the reviews into the policing of the G20 protests and the Kingsnorth climate camp, and that training for public order commanders flags the importance of this issue. The HMIC review on policing protest is due to be published later this year and there will no doubt be important learning for police forces to pick up from that thorough review. The Home Office will also be setting out in its policing White Paper, due out later this year, the key principles for the policing of protest and how they need to be embedded in policing operations. Part of that will touch on the use and retention of photographs. The retention of photographs has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Police will have to weigh up the human rights implications of retaining images versus the public-protection consequences of disposing of them. The noble Baroness still thinks that PACE code D is the appropriate place to change the law. She knows that we disagree. She will be aware that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act governs the taking, retention and use of photographs of persons detained at a police station, as well as photographs taken on the street of people who have been arrested or detained by a police community support officer or given a fixed penalty notice. PACE code D also sets out the procedures for conducting identification parades to enable witnesses and victims to identify suspects. These powers are focused on evidence of either the identity of the person suspected of the offence or evidence of the offence in question. The amendment would extend the scope of the PACE code D provisions to all images taken by the police, including intelligence information. We are not convinced that the codes of practice are the appropriate vehicle for governing retention of all photographs taken by the police. Article 3.4 of PACE code D relates to the procedures governing the conduct of identification procedures when the identity of a suspect is known, not the retention of images. If this change to PACE code D were to take place, the effect would be confusing. I have outlined why the Government are opposed to this amendment and, if introduced, it would bring in bad law.