Key Facts

• Serious case review was conducted for Child Q after his death following a moped crash.
• Child Q was a vulnerable adolescent who was in and out of care, often missing and involved in high-risk behavior.
• Interventions were not made despite requests for curfew and tagging conditions.
• Police recorded 625 homicide offences in the year ending December 2020.
• In the last year covered by data, 37% of homicides involved knife-enabled crimes.
• Clauses 23 to 35 outline requirements for offensive weapon homicide reviews and pilot testing before full implementation.
• The Bill introduces offensive weapons homicide reviews where there is no existing statutory requirement.
• Funding will cover costs during the pilot stage for review partners.
• A Home Office homicide oversight board will be established to oversee the implementation of these reviews.
• Pilots are planned in at least three areas with high and low levels of homicide.
• The pilot period is intended to last 18 months, but can be extended if needed.
• New clause 49 amends the powers of authorised persons to extract information from electronic devices.
• The amendment specifies that extractions must be strictly necessary and proportionate for preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting an offence, helping locate a missing person, or protecting at-risk adults or children.
• An 'at-risk adult' is defined as someone who is experiencing or at risk of neglect or harm and unable to protect themselves.
• The amendments aim to provide legal grounds for the extraction of data from electronic devices when users cannot give consent due to age or incapacity.
• Parents, guardians, registered social workers, and others with relevant authority may provide consent on behalf of children or incapacitated adults under certain conditions.
• Authorized persons can extract information if a user has died, is missing, or there's risk of serious harm to the user.
• The Secretary of State must consult with multiple stakeholders including the Information Commissioner, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Department of Justice, Victims Commissioner, Domestic Abuse Commissioner, regional Victims Champions, and other relevant persons.
• The code will be brought into force by regulations made through statutory instruments subject to annulment in Parliament.
• After coming into force, the Secretary of State may revise the code from time to time.
• The Victims’ Commissioner’s survey found that one in five victims withdrew complaints due to disclosure and privacy concerns.
• Home Office data shows a 42.8% increase in pre-charge withdrawal of rape complaints by December 2020 compared to 25.6% in 2015.
• The charge rate for sexual offences is just 3.6%, with only 1.6% for rape.
• About 50% of digital device requests were not strictly necessary or proportionate.
• Some police officers expressed concern about the culture of requesting third-party material from victims' devices.
• The pilot engaged local solicitors to provide legal advice and support related to article 8 rights to privacy.
• The Victims’ Commissioner survey showed that only 33% of rape complainants agreed that the police clearly explained why requests for access to mobile phone data were necessary.
• A 2020 report by the Information Commissioner outlined concerns about how police downloading of digital devices impacted others' rights to privacy.
• Existing case law legislation states that agreement to digital extraction can be sought only if relevant material can be extracted from a phone for criminal investigations.
• The new power allows police to extract data from electronic devices but lacks necessary protections for victims.
• New clauses aim to define 'agreement' as informed and freely given, limit data extraction to specific information, and ensure a reasonable line of inquiry is followed before extraction.
• Clause 36(5)(b) states that exercise of the power must be necessary and proportionate; Jones proposes amending this to 'strictly necessary'.
• Language competency for non-native speakers should also be considered in amendments.
• The Bill defines an adult as someone aged 16 or over and a child as under 16.
• New clauses aim to protect children's rights until they are 18 years old.
• There is no duty on the Secretary of State to consult victims' representatives in creating the code of practice.
• Concerns about insecure storage of images related to Sarah Everard case.
• Immigration officers may currently request mobile phone data upon entry.
• The Bill aims to improve the management of digital data from victims' devices.
• The rape review is planned to be published after the Whitsun recess.
• £27 million has been allocated for creating 700 new ISVA posts.
• Clause 36(10) classifies individuals aged 16 or over as adults.
• A draft code of practice will be published for scrutiny during Report stage and formally consulted after Royal Assent.
• The Information Commissioner's views were considered in drafting the age classification.
• Steve McCabe addresses Sarah Champion's intervention.
• The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 provides provisions for reasonable lines of inquiry.
• Digital processing notices explain how the police extract information from devices like mobile phones and iPads.
• Investigators must respect an individual’s right to privacy.
• New clause 49 would omit subsection (7)(b) of clause 36, allowing authorised persons to make judgments on less intrusive means.