R (DMP (by his mother and litigation friend DUN)) v The Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police [2026] EWHC 2471 (Admin)
Over the past years, claims challenging the retention of police data have become increasingly prevalent. These came to a head in AB v Chief Constable of British Transport Police [2022] EWHC 2749 (KB) where Johnson J observed that in most cases “it will be proportionate to retain crime reports of offences for long periods of time, particularly where the offences raise public protection issues.” That position has now been revisited in DMP with the High Court emphasising renewed focus on the quality of the retention decision.
Background
At first glance, the facts in DMP are remarkably similar to those in AB. DMP was an eight-year-old autistic child who came to police attention following a report of an alleged assault at a horse stables. DMP was accused of having assaulted an employee and making threats to kill. It was said that DMP had experienced an ‘autistic meltdown’ being overwhelmed by the situation and temporarily losing control, causing an episode of “autistic echolalia” repeating words DMP had read in Pirate stories he had been reading at the time rather than making any real threat of harm.
The police took no further action against GMP, not least given he was under the age of criminal responsibility. The council’s Children’s Services were also notified, who similarly decided to take no action. A record of the allegation was nevertheless retained on police systems.
DMP requested deletion of his record. This prompted a triggered review conducted on 29 October 2024 pursuant to the National Retention Assessment Criteria (‘NRAC’). The review suggested DMP had capacity to inflict serious harm and as such deletion was refused relying, amongst other matters, upon the Home Officer Crime Recording Rules and the College of Policing’s Management of Police Information (‘MoPI’) guidelines.
That decision was internally appealed but subsequently maintained, prompting the judicial review proceedings. In a wide-reaching judgment, HHJ Rawlings (sitting as a High Court Judge) concluded that the ongoing retention breached DMP’s Article 8 rights and amounted to discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The judgment also criticised the approach taken by the Chief Constable to the applicable recording and retention guidance
Analysis
DMP should not be taken as establishing any general rule that the police are required to delete unsubstantiated allegations. In that regard the judgment is entirely consistent with AB in demonstrating the kind of exceptional cases where retention of police data may be disproportionate to the policing purpose.
DMP instead reinforces the important distinction between questions of accuracy and questions of retention. A record may accurately record an allegation, and yet its continued retention may subsequently become disproportionate. The important question is whether, at each stage the data is reviewed, there remains a sufficient policing justification to retain the data balanced against the Article 8 rights of the individual.
The judge concluded that excessive reliance was placed on the MoPI guidelines as being determinative of when data ought to be deleted as opposed to establishing a framework of when retention must, at the latest, be reviewed. Forces responding to such challenges must accordingly be able to demonstrate not merely that a retention period has not expired, but why retention remains justified on the specific facts of the particular case.
Where the judgment is most distinct from that in AB is the challenge that was brought under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The Chief Constable in DMP did not address whether the retention of the data was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and given the conclusions of the judge elsewhere that retention was unlawful it is unsurprising the judge concluded there had been a breach of s.15. However, it is worth highlighting this line of challenge. Statistically, neurodivergent people are over-represented amongst those who are arrested or who come into contact with law enforcement agencies. One can imaging this becoming an increasingly prevalent line of challenge to retention of police data.
Practical Consequences
The MoPI guidelines provide a helpful timetable by which reviews of data retention are to be undertaken. They are not, however, the rule. Whenever a challenge is made or other matter comes to light that trigger a review it is not sufficient to refuse deletion simply because the initial 10 clear year period has not yet expired. The assessments made by Forces’ information governance teams of proportionality against the particular characteristics and circumstances of individuals and the allegations made against them are coming under increasing scrutiny.
Care needs to be taken where an individual seeks to explain their actions by reference to a particular protected characteristic that materially impacts either the impact of retention (as in AB) or assessment of risk (as in both AB and DMB). The safest approach will never be to say that policy or guidance documents permit the ongoing retention of the claim. Rather, a careful assessment needs to be taken of what legitimate policing purpose is being served by retaining the data at the time of the review, what evidence is available to support that, and how do these weigh against the impact of retention on the particular individual.
Above all, to avoid falling into the shoes of these Chief Constables, forces will need to ensure all reviews are well-documented and individualised, apply the correct retention guidance, identify the continuing policing purpose, and expressly address proportionality. If that evidence exists, forces will be in a materially stronger position in the event of any future retention challenge.
