Skip to main content
Normal View

European Court of Human Rights Rulings

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 11 December 2012

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Questions (63)

Michael Colreavy

Question:

63. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the decision in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in MM v United Kingdom, ruled that the indefinite retention and disclosure of minor criminal records infringed Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which protects private and family life; and his plans to address same in the context of the recently passed National Vetting Bureau Bill. [54478/12]

View answer

Written answers

My Department is aware of the decision of 13 November 2012 in the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the case of MM V United Kingdom. The decision relates to a caution issued in Northern Ireland in the year 2000. The Court highlighted the absence of a clear legislative framework for the collection and storage of data, and the lack of clarity as to the scope, extent and restrictions of the common law powers of the police to retain and disclose caution data. The Court also noted that the limited filtering arrangements made no distinction on the basis of the nature of the offence, the disposal in the case, the time which has elapsed since the offence took place or the relevance of the data to the employment sought. The cumulative effect of these and other shortcomings was that the Court was not satisfied that there were sufficient safeguards in the system for retention and disclosure of criminal record data to ensure that data relating to the applicant’s private life have not been disclosed in violation of her right to respect for her private life.

The National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill will provide a clear legislative framework for disclosure. There is provision for the disclosure of information of a person’s caution for an offence, which would constitute “specified information” as defined in the Bill. Such information could only be disclosed if it was considered that the information led to a bona fide concern that the person concerned would pose a threat to a child or a vulnerable person, and that a disclosure of the information is relevant, proportionate and “the rights of the person have been considered and taken account of in a manner that is consistent with fairness and natural justice." The Bill is not inconsistent with the principles of this judgement and I do not consider that the Bill requires any amendment to address this issue. It may however, be necessary to separately establish administrative procedures to delete records regarding a caution after a certain period of time. My Department is considering this issue in consultation with the Attorney General.

Top
Share