A Metropolitan Police officer was dismissed after repeatedly accessing sensitive files linked to the disappearance and murder of Sarah Everard while off-duty. This incident raises serious concerns about compliance with legal requirements governing police data access, especially as the government considers data reforms.
Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens. After this tragedy, a specialized task force from the Directorate of Professional Standards conducted an audit. They focused on the 104 officers and staff who accessed files related to her case. Of those, 68 were officers and 36 were other staff. The investigation aimed to determine if they had valid policing reasons for their access. Seven officers received gross misconduct notices and faced hearings.
One officer, who belonged to the Roads and Transport unit, was formally dismissed for accessing data while off-duty. Others faced varying consequences, including written warnings and additional training. In total, two-thirds required some form of follow-up action.
Campaigners and privacy experts worry that if the government’s Data Use and Access Bill (DUAB) passes, incidents like this could become more common. The bill seeks to eliminate the requirement for police forces to log how they access and use data. Currently, officers must document their reasons for accessing specific information, but under the proposed bill, they’d still need to log basic info like the time and date, not necessarily the justifications for access.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, pointed out that the investigation of over 100 staff shows a clear pattern of misuse. He expressed concern that we’ve only seen the surface of the issue and warned that reducing accountability measures could lead to more abuses of power. “We need greater transparency and accountability in how the police handle public data,” he said.
Independent security consultant Owen Sayers highlighted the broader implications of this incident. He raised questions about who else might be affected by off-duty officers accessing data and whether there are adequate controls in place to protect public information.
Out of the seven officers reviewed, three accessed the information legitimately, while three did not. One officer was dismissed, another received a final warning lasting three years, and the third resigned before facing dismissal. A seventh officer will have a separate misconduct hearing at a later date. The Met also mentioned that another staff member had previously faced a private hearing and was dismissed.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy emphasized that officers are regularly reminded about appropriate access to police systems and files. He mentioned that most officers who misused their access acknowledged they acted out of curiosity.
In response to inquiries about this incident, the Met confirmed they are reviewing the circumstances. They assessed the risk of the incident and decided it didn’t warrant a mandatory referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) but informed them of the situation nonetheless.
The Home Office defended the DUAB’s removal of logging requirements by suggesting that recording justifications has proven ineffective. They noted that officers still need valid law enforcement reasons for accessing data.
The ICO expressed satisfaction that some logging requirements are still in place, emphasizing their importance for monitoring potential misconduct. They called for continued scrutiny of the proposals put forward by the government.
Critics like Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones have described the removal of police logging requirements as problematic, potentially jeopardizing the UK’s alignment with the European Union’s Law Enforcement Directive, which mandates detailed logging of data access.