These records must, therefore, be retained and reviewed again at a later date in line with the review schedule. Where police information is contained within other unrelated material — for example, police pocket notebooks — the relevant extracts should be included within the appropriate record.

Likewise, executive meeting minutes relating to the governance of a criminal investigation should be incorporated in the relevant case file. A decision to retain records relating to a particular individual does not necessarily mean that every piece of information held in relation to them needs to be kept. The reviewing officer should use their discretion to identify those records and evidential material that contain sufficient information to contribute to understanding the nature of the offence or the type of risk posed.

During an investigation, a number of pieces of information are collected for purely administrative purposes — for example, court availability — and do not have any independent significance. It is not necessary to keep these ancillary records as part of a file that has been marked for retention, as they do not contribute to understanding the nature of the offence or the type of risk posed. Information that is duplicated across force systems should also be minimised.

Consideration should be given to the amount and type of detail held on individual systems and the extent to which this is duplicated in others, with a view to disposing of those that are surplus to requirements. It is also more practical to retain electronic records rather than paper ones, although care should be taken to guard against data obsolescence when records are to be retained for long periods.

Original physical exhibits do not need to be retained where it is unreasonable to do so. However, a copy should be stored in the form of photographs, video recordings or digital images, in accordance with section 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act PACE The NRAC asks a series of questions focused on potential risk factors, in an effort to draw reasonable conclusions about the risk of harm presented by individuals or offenders. Wherever a record is assessed as being necessary and proportionate to the purpose it serves, it can be retained.

These questions are as follows. A completed copy of this assessment template should be kept on file as a record that the review has taken place and to support the subsequent decision. An NRAC template should be completed and stored. These can be populated electronically and should be linked to the nominal record. The key points to consider when completing the NRAC are as follows.

The initial review of police information will be conducted when the record is created. The information will be risk assessed, taking into account other available information, and then evaluated to determine its provenance, accuracy, relevance to a policing purpose and the action necessary.

As stated above, reviews of crime-related police information are undertaken in line with the published schedule, which determines the length of time between each review dependent on the associated MoPI group. Under the review schedule, information held for policing purposes is divided into three MoPI groups. All forces should have access to the comprehensive and regularly updated PNLD list, allowing them to search by offence, offence code and MoPI review group.

When an offender or alleged offender — for example, no further action, arrested, acquitted or charged — is recorded as MoPI group 3 on a force system, they present as lower risk due to the type of offence s they are linked to.

A force can decide whether to delete these without manual review after a six-year clear period or review them. It is not necessary to review national systems such as the PNC and the Police National Database PND , although a force may wish to do so if there is evidence of cross-border activity.

If a force does choose to delete group 3 records without manual review, they should put in place mechanisms to identify, at the point of initial review, any records that should be excluded from that process.

This should be for offences that, although group 3, may be seen as a precursor to more serious offending. The chief officer must also be confident that data quality is sufficient for automated decision making. However, due to the potential risk of group 1 and 2 offenders to commit serious sexual or violent offences, consideration must be given to the national record and the review must include a PNC and PND check.

If a group 1 or 2 offender is found to have committed a group 3 offence in another force area, the review should consider whether this changes the level of risk posed by the subject when making the decision whether to retain or delete. If the decision is to retain, then the clear period should be reset. Scheduled reviews also apply to potentially dangerous people who have not yet been convicted or even accused of serious offending but whose behaviour nonetheless causes concern, for example, individuals identified by intelligence reports.

Designated clear periods prevent forces from having to justify the continued retention of information related to prolific offenders for as long as they continue to offend. It will, on most occasions, be proportionate and necessary to retain details of victims and witnesses for the completeness of the data. Forces should have processes in place for considering deleting such information if a request for deletion is received. It is a legal requirement under DPA that forces have processes in place to deal with all requests for erasure.

This applies to offenders, victims and witnesses. The review schedule focuses on the offender rather than on business areas. It is based on the following four premises:.

When undertaking a scheduled review, the presumption should be that the record is deleted unless a reason is found that justifies retention. The justification will be based on the risk that the nominal continues to present. Forces should determine the extent of their scheduled reviews but they may wish to include the following:.

This will not be routinely required in MoPI group 3 cases. Where additional information is found, forces should take into account clear periods and risk to determine further retention of information, making use of the NRAC. A triggered review provides the ability for forces to review a nominal record where appropriate outside of the normal scheduled review process.

There are three types of triggers for a manual review, as follows. New information is added to the record of a nominal that is of a MoPI group higher than the one already recorded against them. The record should reflect the new MoPI group across all pieces of information.

This may be automated where possible. As a minimum, this type of triggered review should ensure that the highest MoPI group recorded is accurate, establishing the correct retention period. Any record that is found to be inaccurate must be updated. A record found to be inaccurate beyond alteration should be disposed of.

By the time a review is triggered, the information under review may have already been used to make decisions and justify police action. Consequently, any updates must be adequately documented for audit purposes. A triggered review initiated by new information will reset the clear period. There are concerns about the adequacy, relevance or accuracy of a record that have surfaced during, for example, Disclosure and Barring Service DBS checks, FOI checks, subject access requests or requests for deletion of information.

Forces should have mechanisms in place that allow triggered reviews when there are concerns about the quality of information contained within the record. This provides the opportunity to consider resolution of significant data quality issues or to deal with requests for deletion from members of the public that have been approved by the chief constable or relevant delegated chief officer.

Manually generated reviews may be undertaken at any point during the lifecycle of the data held and as many times as necessary to ensure that the data is accurate, is relevant and meets a policing purpose. When disclosing information as a result of DBS checks, FOI requests, subject access requests, or sharing data between forces or with partner agencies, those responsible should be mindful of the accuracy of the data they are disclosing. Basic checks should be conducted prior to disclosure to ensure that the information being provided is accurate, relevant and of sufficient quality.

Subject to requirements, any significant issues identified should instigate a triggered review of the record and any updates must be adequately documented for audit purposes. A manual review to address data quality issues of this nature would not reset the clear period.

If credible information is received that a subject has died, then a review can be triggered or the force can wait until the next scheduled review. Considerations regarding deleting the record are at section 4. The policy for completing triggered and manual reviews in each force should be published and clearly communicated to all relevant staff, to ensure understanding and adherence across the organisation. The review schedules below apply to information related to people convicted, acquitted, charged, arrested, questioned or implicated with an offence within the relevant group.

A decision to delete this information or otherwise should then be made on the basis of a manual review. This information should be reviewed every ten years to ensure that it is adequate and up to date, and that retention is justified.

Some parts of the group 1 nominal record need not be retained if they are not relevant or necessary. Information relating to sexual, violent or serious offences that are not listed as serious specified offences in Schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act can be retained only for as long as the offender or suspected offender continues to be assessed as posing a risk of harm, using the NRAC. After every year clear period, these records should be reviewed and a risk-based decision should be made on whether they should be disposed of or retained.

If the individual in question continues to offend or is implicated in continued offending, records relating to them must be retained. In these circumstances, however, the resetting of the clear period means that forces do not have to conduct a scheduled review or justify the continued retention of such records. Records relating to people who are convicted, acquitted, charged, arrested, questioned or implicated for offending behaviour that does not fall within group 1 or group 2 are dealt with in group 3.

Group 3 offences may be deleted without manual review, after a six-year clear period, if certain criteria are met. Undetected crimes with no named suspects will be retained in line with the relevant MoPI group based on offence type.

The table below gives examples of the offences and record types of information that are included in each group. Offences specified in the Sentencing Act Schedule 18 which carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.

Potentially dangerous people. Retain until the subject has reached years of age, then carry out a manual review. Review every 10 years to ensure adequacy and necessity. This category poses the highest possible risk of harm to the public. Group 2 Other sexual and violent offences. If you have been released under investigation you will have been released from custody without charge, with no obligation to return to the police station on bail to provide any further evidence for the offence for which you were questioned for.

However, even once you have been released, the police investigation against you will continue, with further evidence being collected and investigations carried out. During the period of investigation, you may be required to speak to a police officer, or you may even be arrested again.

In some instances, the police may also contact you to make an appointment to attend the police station for a further interview. Many contributing factors determine how long a police investigation will take and, as such, there is no fixed amount of time associated with an investigation.

How long the investigation takes will depend on the type of offence, any witness evidence and your own evidence, amongst other factors. You will be notified — at an unspecified point in the future — of the outcome of the investigation.

Once the investigation is concluded, the police should notify you of the outcome. Prior to the introduction of The Policing and Crime Act , if you were suspected of committing a criminal offence you could find yourself on bail for months, or even years. You would receive repeated bail to return dates from the police, often with no tangible evidence that progress in the investigation had been made. The Act brought about changes to the way the police were required to deal with individuals who have been arrested with the need for further investigation, specifying certain time limits for the police to carry out an investigation.

As a result of these time limits, the police often now release suspects under investigation rather than releasing them on police bail. The downside to this is that investigations now have no specific end date and can drag on for much longer with no real check and balance.

Sometimes the only thing you will receive after waiting for many months is confirmation of whether a case will proceed to court. If you do receive such a notice, it is vital that you then seek expert legal advice even if you did seek advice from the police duty solicitor at the time. The Act specifies a statutory maximum police custody time limit — known as the pre-charge bail limit — of up to 28 days, with the exception of certain cases.

Unless this bail period has been lawfully extended, it is not possible to keep someone on bail after the time period has elapsed. Delivering Operational Benefits to Law Enforcement. Not necessarily. The reasons why, in certain circumstances, the police decide to take no further action in particular cases are many and varied. Sometimes the NFA decision is made by the police or relevant investigating authority e.

In either case, it cannot automatically be concluded that a decision to take no further action in any given case exonerates the person arrested of their alleged involvement in a crime that the police are lawfully bound to investigate. This ground does not necessarily and automatically refer to those instances when a case is not proceeded with in Court.

As per 6. Insufficient evidence to convict does not necessarily mean there is sufficient evidence for an individual to be eliminated as a suspect. If there is documentation available to you e. I have several arrest events, can I apply for the removal of all of them on one application? The application needs to be set out clearly and needs to address the ground s chosen for each arrest event. Depending on the circumstances of the arrest event, certain ground s might not be relevant for all arrest events.

Therefore, for clarity, it would be best practice to complete pages 2, 3 and 5 if required for each arrest event you wish to be considered for deletion. What do I do?