Police disclosure requests after road traffic collisions – what to consider

When a road traffic collision (RTC) occurs, the legal and ethical obligations surrounding the disclosure of personal data can be less than clear.

Understanding the obligation to exchange information

Pursuant to section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, motorists involved in certain RTCs must exchange key details (name, address, vehicle information) at the scene. If the severity of the incident prevents this, the police often collect this information. Afterward, insurers or legal representatives may request disclosure from the police to determine fault or support civil litigation. Understanding how to respond to such requests is crucial.

Whilst this material is likely to constitute personal data (and therefore engage the protections set out in the data protection legislation) there will be occasions when personal data is not sought (i.e. a factual request about car damage). In those circumstances, the data protection protections won’t apply but the material may not be disclosed, because for example it is held in confidence by the police.

Why disclosure matters

Civil litigation can profoundly impact victims and their families. As the CPS guidance makes clear, timely disclosure by the police can help:

• Provide Financial Relief: Interim payments can support families affected by death or serious injury.
• Facilitate Recovery: Injured parties can use funds for essential treatment.

Recognising the broader social benefit of disclosure can guide decisions.

The legal framework

1. Data Protection and Authorisation

Police process personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. While data collected at a RTC serves law enforcement purposes, sharing it for civil litigation is not inherently part of that purpose. Disclosure must therefore align with legal authorisations, such as:

• Common Law: Information can be disclosed to address a pressing social need.
• Human Rights Act 1998: Articles 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights can support disclosure.
• Case Law: Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] Ch 225 affirmed that sharing RTC-related information for civil claims is permissible.
• Court Orders: Civil Procedure Rules (31.17 and 31.18) may mandate disclosure.

2. Lawful basis for disclosure

Pursuant to Article 6 of the UK GDPR, police must establish a lawful basis for processing personal data. Likely bases include:

• Public Interest: Disclosure supports tasks in the public interest, such as ensuring access to justice.
• Vital Interests: In rare cases, disclosure may protect someone’s life or health.
• Consent: The individual whose data it is, may directly (or indirectly via their insurer) request the data.
• Legal obligation: For example, in response to a subject access request.

In most cases the police cannot rely on “legitimate interest” as a basis for processing personal data. This exclusion only applies when the processing of personal data is carried out in the performance of their tasks (e.g. investigating crime). The legitimate interest basis is available when processing personal data outside of their public tasks. It is arguable that the processing of persona data envisaged in this article is outside of the police’s public tasks.

3. A step-by-step approach

Even with a legal basis, each request should be assessed individually. Key considerations include:

1. Risk assessment: Could disclosure harm individuals or compromise a criminal investigation
2. Proportionality: Is the information necessary and accurate, without being excessive?
3. Privacy safeguards: Will the recipient protect the data? Is a privacy notice included?
4. Record keeping: Is the decision to disclose or withhold recorded?
5. Data minimisation: Does all of the data need to be shared?
6. The criminal investigation/prosecution: Have the CPS been consulted? Do they need to be consulted?

4. Timelines for Disclosure

The CPS Guidance on Disclosure to Third Parties provides clear timelines:

• Basic information: Within four weeks of the RTC.
• Police reports, photographs, and CCTV: Within four to six months.
• Witness statements: Within six to nine months, unless withheld due to an ongoing criminal trial. If withheld, release them within four weeks of a verdict. Sentencing doesn’t count in this.
• Medical reports: should not be disclosed. However, the name and address of the examining practitioner can be shared.

Benefits of a consistent approach

An inconsistent disclosure policy creates frustration for requestors and additional costs for the police when requests are challenged. So long as it will not prejudice a criminal investigation or put an individual at risk of harm, early disclosure can:

1. Support victims: Speed up financial relief for families and injured parties.
2. Reduce costs: Minimise time and resources spent contesting requests.