Bob is ejected from a private business as the police are called because the security guard felt his dietary proclivities were socially unacceptable in public. The police arrived and Bob was already out of the store but they claimed even after hearing his side of the story that he must give his personal address and details under s50 police reform act due to their having been allegations of anti social behaviour committed. If he didn’t comply with their demand, they said, then he would be arrested.
Several problems with this: at first they requested Bob’s details for the purpose of rendering a trespass/barring notice to him. When he declined on the basis that no offences had been committed, they replied by changing their request to a demand on threat of arrest, for which the ground was the then-invoked s50 police reform act, and the fact that there had been at least allegations of anti social behaviour.
First, it was evident that they had not been planning to treat the situation as one of dealing with a case of ASB. They simply wanted to relay the private business’s desire to ban Bob from future visits to their premises, which was evidently the motive for their request for bob’s personal details, and in Itself I think I grounds for a compulsory demand for the same.
The second issue is that they then turned around and disclosed Bob’s details including name and DoB to the private business who in itself has no right to compel such disclosure of personal data.
In my experience, an uncharged criminal suspect’s details have never been disclosed to me by police even when they are aware of them, when I have been a complainant/victim. Why does a business’s private security become entitled to a private individual’s personal details disclosed under compulsion and force of law?
The officers explained to Bob that it is permissible to disclose for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime. (Which trespassing in itself is not).
Was this officer talking nonsense?
