Grooming Gangs. Reactions to Redactions.

Forbes has dealt in some detail with the issue in recent articles on this topic:

Another aspect of the gathering of evidential data that has been raised recently and generally criticised is the prevalence of sometimes heavy redaction of documents, such that it has been suggested in a recent report that it is sometimes impossible to assess the evidential value of the information.

At first blush,  and without considering the reasons behind redaction, this does appear to be unacceptable. Whilst redacting a document so that it loses all evidential value is a pointless exercise, the fact remains that due to GDPR and data protection requirements a certain degree of redaction (eg of non-involved third parties) is often necessary. Depending on the recipient of the document it may also be necessary to redact certain information so as not to potentially prejudice a criminal trial of an alleged perpetrator.

Some redactions however, (for instance to hide the ethnicity of an alleged perpetrator) are not justified (albeit at the time done with good intention).  Indeed it is likely that unnecessary redactions are to some extent responsible for the issues raised on data gathering in the recent Casey report which as I have said  found unexplained and often stark discrepancies in the statistics between various organisations.

As someone who has had to advise on redaction of sensitive social care documents in acting for a number of local authorities facing abuse claims, I can tell you that the decisions as to what to remove and what to leave in are often nuanced and it is by no means an exact science. The criteria for disclosure between claimant and defendant solicitors where a claim has been presented under CPR is generally guided by the case of Dunn v Durham County Council.(2012) EWCA Civ 1654

A starting point would be that all of a service user’s records are potentially relevant to determine issues of Bolam negligence and to give context and understanding to arguments of causation. The burden of establishing ‘necessity’, after Dunn, is on the party with possession of the documents. The test of ‘necessity’ under Dunn is a high one and there must be some cogent and compelling reason for redaction.

The rules relating to requests under the DPA (SARs) are more stringent and sometimes extensive redaction is required before disclosure can be provided usually in this case to an individual rather than to solicitors.

In my experience documents emanating from the police tend to be more heavily redacted than those that emanate from local authorities and often there is good reason for this caution.

I would surmise that most of the documents that carry heavy redaction and have been subject to criticism are in effect hybrid documents by which I mean they are probably records which relate not only to the alleged victim but to others , perhaps  a non-involved relative or other individuals whose details must be protected. The test of necessity would justify such redactions.

Therefore, although I can understand the frustration felt by those who have to decipher relevant statistical information from documents that contain significant redaction, it is necessary to also see the issue in the context of document holders having to walk the fine line between providing the relevant records  to the recipient, and  at the same time ensuring that only relevant and necessary information is included, and  also ensuring that a data breach is not involved, which might possibly lead to complaints or legal action by affected persons.