The police have inferred or stated an offence was committed.
This is uncomplicated law. Section 184 is a clear and narrowly framed criminal provision. It was designed to prevent employers or contractors from circumventing legal background checks.
The Law Is Not Complex – it is Binary.
Police professionals who handle DPA requests daily should understand that Section 184 contains a two-part test. This is foundational knowledge for any data protection or disclosure officer.
To allege a breach where either requirement is absent shows a basic misunderstanding of the statute. Worse still, it raises questions about professional competence and intent.
I explicitly excluded criminal and medical data, my request mandate specifically excluded criminal and health data. This alone should have alerted any disclosure recipient to the fundamentals.
I explicitly clarified the nature and scope of my request
The core of my request did not even relate to the type of data Section 184 applies to, therefore, the offence is legally impossible.
I made this patently clear, providing not just reference to the section but also to the findings of others.
Continuing to allege otherwise, or ignoring my explanations/protestations, as occurred, reflects deliberate disregard, not accident.
Police cannot accuse a person of a criminal offence lightly. When doing so, I suggest they must:
- They must be sure that the legal threshold is met
- They must be able to articulate the constituent parts of the offence
- They must not ignore clearly presented rebuttals with evidence and statute
They failed on all 3 counts.
I correctly pointed out the request does not meet the criteria for an offence. This was ignored. Accordingly, the accusation ceases to be a mistake and becomes potentially malicious or reckless.
The staff involved are not laypeople – they are experts. These are trained professionals, often designated disclosure officers, DPA leads, or Freedom of Information specialists. Managers/Supervisors are involved. These police employees have regular access to legal guidance, ICO commentary, and precedent cases.
Accusations have been reviewed by senior officers or heads of department
To suggest that such professionals all ‘missed’ the clear structure of Section 184 strains credibility. It suggests either:
- Gross institutional negligence, or
- Deliberate misuse of legislation to frustrate lawful access to information