Under Section 184, Data Protection Act 2018, it is a criminal offence to require another person to provide, or give access to, a “relevant record” in connection with employment, contracts for services, provision of goods, or similar. Legislation.gov.uk
But that offence only applies where both of its constituent parts are satisfied, there is a two-part test:
- There is a demand (requirement, coercion, compulsion) that a data subject obtain and provide certain data;
- The information sought must be a “relevant record” as defined in Schedule 18 of the DPA 2018.
Possibly, establishing that ‘1’ (a demand is made) may be possible, but ‘2’ cannot be satisfied because crime or RTC reports fall outside the statutory notion of “relevant records.”
What is a “relevant record”?
Schedule 18 to the DPA 2018 defines “relevant record” as comprising:
- Relevant health records (records obtained in exercise of subject access rights).
- Relevant records relating to convictions or cautions (i.e. criminal conviction/caution information obtained via subject access).
- Relevant records relating to statutory functions (in limited circumstances, and again obtained under subject access)
Thus, only those types of data—health, convictions/cautions, or certain statutory-function data—can fall within the scope of Section 184.
Crime reports or RTC (road traffic collision) reports are neither health records nor criminal-conviction / caution data (they are operational/evidential documents). They do not, therefore, qualify as “relevant records” under Schedule 18.
The approach cannot constitute a Section 184 offence
- There is no demand for medical or criminal conviction data.
- The request is for a police/crime / RTC report — an operational document separate from conviction/caution or health records.
- It is explicitly stated that no criminal or health records are being requested, leaving no ambiguity.
- Therefore, ‘2’ fails — the information sought is outside the scope of “relevant records” under Section 184 + Schedule 18.
Because one of the essential limbs is absent, the offence cannot arise.
This should not be difficult to comprehend, particularly given that in mid-2022, when issuing a new version of the ABI/NPCC information sharing agreement, section 2.4 states:
‘It is an offence under Section 184 of the Data Protection Act 2018 to use the right of subject access to equire an individual to make a subject access request for information related to their criminal past. The nformation Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has powers to prosecute organisations who use it. The ABI & NPCC gree and understand that this method of access is incompatible with the current legislation and will not therefore be used.‘
16/07/2025 – That s.184 is not engaged when seeking a crime report was reiterated in an ICO decision, Case Reference Number IC-356699-W0G6
Historical considerations can be read here.