Blaggers could be jailed - Clegg

14 July 2011 Last updated at 11:21 GMT By Brian Wheeler Political reporter, BBC News Deputy PM Nick Clegg: "A whole range of professions have been implicated."

People found guilty of obtaining personal details by deception - known as "blagging" - should be jailed, Deputy PM Nick Clegg has said.

Gordon Brown attempted to introduce prison terms of up to two years for the offence when he was in power.

But the law was never enacted amid concerns from newspaper bosses.

Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre said at the time that the "frightening amendment" would "have a truly chilling effect on good journalism".

But in a speech earlier on press freedom, Mr Clegg said it was time to think again in the light of recent revelations about the alleged behaviour of journalists - and investigators hired by them - at News International.

'Under review'

Mr Clegg said: "On the issue of selling confidential information to journalists specifically, a whole range of professions have been implicated.

"Not just the police, but also private investigators, medical professionals and phone companies. Under the current law, for fraud and phone hacking you can go to prison.

"Whereas, under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act, unlawful use of personal data can get you a fine.

Continue reading the main story

We want to get to the root cause of blagging - the incentive for stealing information and selling it on”

End Quote Information Commissioner's Office "The Information Commissioner recommended in 2006 that that offence should also attract a custodial sentence.

"It wasn't taken up then, and this government has said it will keep it under review.

"I think that now - where it cannot be proved that information was obtained in the public interest - there is a case for looking at this issue again."

Knowingly or recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal information without consent is an offence under Section 55 of Data Protection Act 1998.

However, the act also offers a defence, which is available to anyone who shows that obtaining, disclosing or procuring the information was in the public interest. The public interest defence has never been tested in court.

'Root cause'

Mr Clegg's announcement was welcomed by the Information Commissioner's office, which has been calling for tougher penalties for breaking the Data Protection Act since 2006.

"We believe a custodial sentence is necessary. If it goes to magistrates court, the maximum fine is ?5,000 and that can easily be written off as a business expense," said a spokesman.

"We want to get to the root cause of blagging - the incentive for stealing information and selling it on.

"We believe the threat of a custodial sentence will stop the problem overnight."

Continue reading the main story

This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism”

End Quote Paul Dacre Daily Mail editor in 2008 In a 2008 speech to the Society of Editors, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre described how he had persuaded then Prime Minister Gordon Brown to rethink the proposals to protect press freedom.

He said: "The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records.

"This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.

"The prime minister - I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal - was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.

"Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word."

'Knee-jerk'

In May 2006, the Information Commissioner exposed the trade in details about people's lives - and said journalists were among the main customers.

The report revealed that 305 journalists had been identified during one investigation - Operation Motorman - as customers who were driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information.

It found nine magazines and 22 newspapers had regularly used a private investigator to access illegally-obtained information. A subsequent Freedom of Information request showed where the journalists were employed.

The Daily Mail used the private investigator the most, clocking up 952 transactions - almost five times that used by the News of the World (NoW), the now-defunct newspaper that started the phone-hacking scandal.

The Criminal Justice Act of 2008 provides for a maximum two-year sentence for illegally obtaining personal information without its owner's consent.

It is on the statute book but has never been enacted, meaning it can not be used by judges or magistrates.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The government is keeping the matter of penalties for offences committed under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 under review."

Mr Clegg also used his speech to urge politicians to "resist any temptation to impose knee-jerk, short-sighted restrictions on the media" in the aftermath of the scandal surrounding News International.

The government has launched a judge-led inquiry into press conduct, after allegations of phone hacking and payments to the police.

View the original article here

Bail suspects 'could be released'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 13:39 GMT The Association of Chief Police Officers said it had major concerns about the impact of the ruling Police are urgently reviewing the cases of thousands of suspects after a court ruling restricted their powers to bail them for further questioning.

The ruling - in a case involving Greater Manchester Police - means that suspects can be released on police bail for no more than 96 hours (four days).

At present, suspects can be released on bail pending further inquiries for weeks, or even months, in some cases.

Home Secretary Theresa May said it was a matter of "great concern".

The fresh guidance to police custody officers in England and Wales followed a ruling in the Hookway case by Mr Justice McCombe in the High Court in May.

It says officers will have to re-arrest suspects in order to detain or question them again, but only if they have "new evidence".

Guidance from Scotland Yard says that police will also no longer have the power to detain a suspect who breaches their bail conditions or fails to surrender.

'Verge of disaster'

Mrs May said the Home Office was considering whether to appeal against the ruling or introduce emergency legislation.

She said: "We're working with Acpo at the moment and looking at a number of possibilities as to how we can advise the police on this issue.

"We are conscious of the concerns this judgment has brought in terms of operational policing."

Continue reading the main story Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent

For over 25 years, since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it's been customary for officers to release suspects on police bail while they complete their investigations. Sometimes this can take weeks or months.

When the suspect returns to the police station he or she might be detained for further questioning, re-bailed pending additional inquiries, charged or released without action.

The ruling in the Hookway case has thrown this long-established practice into disarray. On the face of it, it means police have four days at most to bring charges - regardless of whether suspects are in custody or not.

The reality is that in thousands of cases this won't be possible. Police, under the new interpretation of the laws, will be powerless to prevent suspects walking away from a police station, with no conditions attached, unless they can find new evidence to arrest them again.

No wonder the Home Office and senior officers are urgently seeking a remedy.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said it was "a matter of grave concern".

"Because it seems this has immediate effect, it will disrupt vital ongoing investigations and hugely hamper the police in their job," she said.

"Police officers I have spoken to are deeply alarmed at the implications for criminal cases they are working on right now."

West Yorkshire Police said it has 4,260 suspects on police bail.

The force's Chief Constable Norman Bettison said the ruling meant suspects would have to be charged or released without further action once 96 hours had elapsed.

It now has no provision to carry out further inquiries with suspects on bail.

He said: "It's on the verge of a disaster now because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is, 'What do we do, boss?'

"I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go."

He added: "We are running round like headless chickens this morning wondering what this means to the nature of justice.

"My holding position with my officers is that I can't believe this is what was envisioned."

He has told his officers to continue working to their usual guidelines until further advice is issued.

The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said one senior police figure had described the implications as "dire" as it would have far-reaching effects on serious and complex cases where police needed time to gather evidence and speak to witnesses, such as in rape allegations.

'Chaos and concern'

Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) lead spokesman on the issue, Essex Chief Constable Jim Barker-McCardle, said the ruling had a "profound impact" on the way police investigate crime.

He said: "Unless overturned, the indications are its effect is that police can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release."

And he told BBC Radio 4's the World at One the ruling had "thrown the whole of policing into the air".

"There's chaos and concern out there. We're working hard at the moment with the Home Office and the home secretary and the CPS to make sense of this, and at the moment, sense to me looks like legislation, and potentially emergency legislation," he said.

The ruling was made by the district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court, who said the detention clock continued to run while the suspect was on bail.

The case concerned a murder suspect, Paul Hookway, who was arrested in November. Police had been given permission to detain him for 36 hours but he was released after 28.

Five months later, police applied to the courts to extend the period of detention from 36 hours to the maximum of 96 hours. But the district judge refused, saying that the 96 hours had expired months ago.

Greater Manchester Police sought a judicial review, but the ruling was upheld at the High Court.

After the ruling, the Crown Prosecution Service and Acpo sought expert legal advice which stated that it set new case law and had to be adhered to.

The force is now seeking leave to appeal at the Supreme Court.

View the original article here