To ICO Casework
Subject CIM.11.22_1C0 Case reference: IC-108170-P1J8_C
Display Name DC Fl response (3)
Date Received 14/04/2022 13:57
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 [redacted] car, the [redacted] 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- Home Office circular 1967 (as far as the team are aware this never been superseded)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.
- 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.
- 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