On 19 January the High Court will hear a landmark legal challenge of the Home Office and Police policy which requires the retention of all criminal convictions until the person reaches 100 years of age.
The women bringing the challenge were pimped into prostitution as teenagers and have multiple criminal convictions for soliciting and loitering. Recently they won a legal challenge[1] of the operation of the Disclosure and Barring Scheme which required them to disclose these records to employers and others. These convictions can now be filtered so that they are no longer required to show these records of their abuse and exploitation from many years back. However, the National Police Chief Council (NPCC)’s policy on the ‘Deletion of Records from the National Police Systems’ require that a record of all criminal convictions are held until the offender reaches the age of 100. This is despite the fact that many of the convictions would no longer be classed as a crime because the offence[2] was amended to exclude children.
The case is brought against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), responsible for owning and operating the Police National Computer PNC and the NPCC, responsible for the policy around deletion of records. Karon Monaghan QC will argue on behalf of the women that the policy (contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights) is wholly disproportionate, that there are insufficient safeguards regulating retention and that the policy permits ongoing discrimination against women.
Information on the PNC is available to a wide range of public bodies and some private organisations, in addition to the police, CPS and courts, it can also be accessed by the Royal Mail, trading standards and credit checking organisations, amongst others.
Fiona Broadfoot, one of the women bringing the claim, stated,
“As a consequence of meeting a dangerous pimp when I was only 15 who forced me to sell sex for money, by the age of 17 I had 39 convictions for soliciting and loitering. Despite escaping prostitution over thirty years ago, I am horrified that these records of my abuse and exploitation will be retained for another 50 years and be made available to so many agencies.”
‘Sam’, one of the other women who provides evidence to support this case, said, “Why should I continue to be judged and stigmatised so many years after I got away from the hellish life I entered as a teenager?”
Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the Claimants said, “What possible justification can there be for keeping such deeply personal, sensitive information on the PNC, particularly where our understanding of prostitution offences has moved forward so far and the women concerned would now be regarded as victims not criminals.”
[1] R(QSA and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2018] EWHC 639 (Admin)
[2] Soliciting and loitering contrary to s1 Street Offences Act 1959