Feeds

Officer jailed for leaking police records to violent criminal

Sentence increased to nine months on appeal

New hybrid storage solutions

A police officer who improperly accessed a police database and passed individuals' personal details on to a man with a violent criminal record has had his jail term increased to nine months.

James Andrew Hardy was previously found guilty of misfeasance in a public office for improperly accessing the police database and was not jailed. He was given a suspended prison sentence of 28 weeks and 300 hours of community service.

The Attorney General appealed that sentence and the prison term was increased by the Court of Appeal to nine months.

Hardy accessed the police database and passed personal details on three people to Martin Jolley, a known criminal. Jolley wanted to take action against the three in retaliation for their actions against him or a friend.

Hardy must have known, said judges Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, Mr Justice Hedley and Mr Justice Pitchers, that there was a serious risk that Jolley intended to subject the three people to physical violence.

The judges ruled that the sentence should include an element of deterrence in order to make it clear to other police officers that the improper use of information in the police database was an offence that would be severely punished.

Hardy and Jolley had both pleaded guilty, and the judges said taking that into account Hardy should face an 18-month jail term. Hardy had already served the equivalent of a 10-week jail term while awaiting trial, as well as a four month curfew. He had also already completed his 300 hours of community service, so the court ordered that he complete a nine month jail term.

Special constable Geraldine Tabor was fined £1,000 in 2005 for looking up the criminal records of fellow employees at the petrol station where she worked. Special constables are part-time volunteers. She said she looked up the details because she suspected one employee of stealing fuel and the other of stealing bags of chocolate oranges.

In 2004 a police computer operator was fined £400 under the Data Protection Act for using the police database to look up four of her friends because she was bored.

Copyright © 2007, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Related links

Law report at Times Online
Data protection fine for Special Constable
Data protection fine for 'bored' police worker

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
Radio hams can encrypt, in emergencies, says Ofcom
Consultation promises new spectrum and hints at relaxed licence conditions
Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC
And ISPs should nab 'em on our behalf
Former Bitcoin Foundation chair pleads guilty to money-laundering charge
Charlie Shrem plea deal could still get him five YEARS in chokey
NORKS ban Wi-Fi and satellite internet at embassies
Crackdown on tardy diplomatic sysadmins providing accidental unfiltered internet access
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile
Data demand and the rise of virtualization is challenging IT teams to deliver storage performance, scalability and capacity that can keep up, while maximizing efficiency.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.