YZ v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

YZ v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

The appeal was dismissed because the retention of the applicant’s data, including acquittal and sensitive information, was in accordance with lawful and proportionate policies (the Guidance and MoPI APP), and was strictly necessary for law enforcement and safeguarding purposes. The Guidance did not unlawfully shift the burden of proof to the applicant, and the interference with Article 8 rights was justified.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: YZ; Defendant/respondent: Chief Constable of South Wales Police; Intervener: National Police Chiefs’ Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retention of Police Records, Data Erasure, Burden of Proof Under Data Protection Act, Article 8 ECHR, Police National Computer Records, Sensitive Personal Data, Judicial Review Procedure
Data Protection Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Retention of Police Records Data Erasure Burden of Proof Under Data Protection Act Article 8 ECHR +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YZ

Claimant/appellant

Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Defendant/respondent

National Police Chiefs’ Council

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retention of acquittal and related sensitive data on police records is lawful under the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Guidance and MoPI APP policies are compatible with the DPA and ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof is wrongly placed on the applicant for data deletion

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the retention of the applicant’s data, including acquittal and sensitive information, was in accordance with lawful and proportionate policies (the Guidance and MoPI APP), and was strictly necessary for law enforcement and safeguarding purposes. The Guidance did not unlawfully shift the burden of proof to the applicant, and the interference with Article 8 rights was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed