29/03/2022 (displays ‘date received 11/04/2022’)
From ICO Casework
To DP0@sussex.police.uk
Subject ICO Case reference: IC-108170-P1J8
Display Name ICO to DC – Fl needed (3)
Dear
Thank you for your reply to my email dated 15 March 2022. I note the contents. At this stage some further clarification is needed.
In your email dated 3 March 2022 you stated Sussex Police’s legal basis for processing as follows:
“Due to the lawful requirement to make the disclosure under the Road Traffic Act, the information was further processed as it was compatible and necessary for the performance of a task carried out for that purpose by a competent authority. Under the data minimisation requirements, only the relevant and pertinent information was shared with the aggrieved party, this being sufficient to report the claim to their insurance company.”
I have understood this to mean that Mr [redacted] personal data was disclosed to the other party to the
alleged collision under Article 6(1)(e) UK GDPR ‘Public Task’.
- Please confirm if this is the case – Y/N
If no, please clarify what lawful basis was used to make the disclosure. If yes, please respond to the following:
- What was the public task being carried out?
- What is the clear basis in law for this task?
- Why was the disclosure necessary for this task? Have other ways of performing the task been considered? If yes, please explain what they were, and why they were not used.
Guidance on the use of ‘Public Task’ as a lawful basis is on our website here.
Please provide any other information you think may be necessary for this investigation.
We ask that you provide your response as soon as possible, and no later than 7 days from the date of this email.
I look forward to hearing from you again. Please contact me on the number below if necessary. Yours sincerely,
David Hunt
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF T. 0330 414 6822 F. 01625 524510 ico org uk
14/04/2022
To ICO Casework
Subject CIM.11.22_1C0 Case reference: IC-108170-P1J8_C
Dear David
The information shared in these instances was targeted, proportionate and minimal to allow the aggrieved party to report the incident and other driver details to their insurer to claim for damage to their vehicle. The police recognise that in this instance, [redacted] went on to commit an offence and was reprimanded for their actions. The information was shared with both drivers,
The police did not disclose any information to [redacted] directly, [redacted] should not have shared this information with [redacted] for this purpose, it should have been shared solely with the insurer for the purposes of making a claim. In this instance, there clearly was a possibility of civil litigation as damage had been caused to car,
the believed was responsible.
Prior to release of information, checks were conducted to identify any risks or safeguarding issues. If issues were highlighted, police would consider options and speak with interested parties directly. On checking local systems, there were no risks identified and neither party were known. Therefore, the safeguarding checks did not flag any potential issue such as this and the data was shared solely for the purposes of the aggrieved party making an insurance claim.
The Central Ticketing Team have provided the attached documents for further reading:
- Release of Information following a Road traffic Accident
- Home Office circular 1967 (as far as the team are aware this never been superseded)
- NPCC guidance — Policy when dealing with disclosure of information held by third parties in road traffic collisions (pars 1.3, 2.1, 6-6.3)
- CPS Guidance — disclosure of material to third parties (Road Traffic Collisions) : Disclosure of Material to Third Parties I The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk)
In answer to the specific questions:
- What was the public task being carried out?
The processing of this information was necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller as there is a requirement under section 170 (1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for drivers to exchange details at the scene of an accident. The information was shared under the Police statutory functions to bring offenders to justice, albeit this was through civil proceedings for insurance purposes. The minimum and necessary information (for insurers to make a claim) was shared.
- What is the clear basis in law for this task?
There is a lawful requirement for drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles to exchange details at the scene of a road traffic accident. In this instance, [redacted] deemed there to be no damage and therefore left the
scene. However, the other involved party identified damage and as [redacted] has not provided his details,
was in clear violation of the legislative requirements (section 170 (1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). 170(2) The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
[redacted] refused to give details as claimed there was no damage.
170(3) If for any reason the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
[redacted] did not report the accident to the Police, this was done by the other party.
170(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
This constitutes the processing of the data in question under Public Task for a competent authority.
- Why was the disclosure necessary for this task?
In order for the interested parties to pursue a civil claim as the Police investigation was closed NFA insufficient evidence. CPS guidance is as follows: Marcel & Others v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1991) 1 All ER 845, Dillon U specifically approved the current practice of the police in supplying information and witness statements to interested parties where there is a possibility of civil litigation after a road collision, in particular, the supply of names and addresses of parties involved in the collision
- Have other ways of performing the task been considered?
Yes, we can advise interested parties or their solicitors / insurance companies to apply for a copy of the Police report, however there is a charge for this service and would contradict the guidance in the attached documents to ensure that there is a timely and reasonable disclosure to interested parties of basic facts.
Regards
Information Governance Supervisor
Sussex Police Headquarters, Church Lane, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2DZ www.sussex.police.uk
