Blurring the Lines: the redaction dilemma within UK Policing

As policing becomes increasingly digital and data-driven, the investigative workload is being stretched to its limits around one key task - redaction. The process of removing or obscuring personal information from case files has become one of the most pressing yet often overlooked challenges currently facing UK policing. 

The introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), alongside existing disclosure duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA), has added further complexity. Police must now balance the right to privacy with the legal obligation to disclose material that may be relevant to the defence, often under very tight deadlines and wider public concerns around the speed of the criminal justice system.

Once confined to the assessment of paper-based files, redaction now involves managing a large volume of digital material, which includes body-worn video, CCTV, mobile phone downloads, interview recordings, and potentially hundreds of unused documents per case. What was once a relatively straightforward admin task has become a bottleneck in the criminal justice process. 

Time and resources are already stretched to their limit, yet officers and police staff are spending hours, even days, redacting a single case file. Not only does this increase public concerns about the effectiveness and pace of criminal justice processes, but forces are having to divert frontline staff onto ‘back-office’ admin tasks. This removes them from public facing operational roles, as noted in 2023 Policing Productivity Review that approximately 770,000 hours are spent by investigators redacting text material annually, and that “police forces will have spent 210,000 hours redacting material for the 38,274 files that do not progress beyond CPS”. [1] 

Tackling this problem is about more than just battling increasing volumes of material for redaction, and is compounded by the following issues:  

• Inconsistent redaction processes across local forces and CPS offices add to the risks and make the introduction of national guidance and solutions more challenging; 

• A lack of clarity over responsibilities, especially where third-party materials (e.g. social services or healthcare records) are concerned, creating delays, duplication of work, and at worst, legislative and privacy breaches; 

• A tendency for police to over-redact material and ‘play it safe’ can lead to key information being omitted or misunderstood, resulting in unnecessary no-charge decisions, or extensive rework on the police side;  

• A lack of training and guidance for front line staff who are expected to make important redaction decisions without formal instruction on data protection law, national guidance, or legal thresholds for disclosure;  

• Continued reliance on manual processes to review and redact material, which are slow, laborious and not suited to digital evidence, an approach that is also vulnerable to errors and inconsistent decision-making based on individual training and experience;

• A wide range of organisations involved in criminal justice, with the police, CPS, case workers, courts, victim services, and other public agencies involved. Each handle sensitive information at various points, often using incompatible systems and with differing expectations on what should be redacted and when; and

• A rising tide of public scrutiny, particularly following high-profile misconduct cases, has led to greater demands for transparency, placing pressure on the police to disclose footage and records at an earlier stage and bringing legal and reputational risk if redaction is mishandled. 

The result is a system under strain, where redaction is no longer a procedural step but a strategic vulnerability across policing and the justice system. 

A solution won’t be quick, nor will it be simple, but it must be systemic and include the following elements: 

• Nationally consistent guidance on roles, responsibilities, definitions and legal thresholds; 

• A refreshed set of police principles that are proportionate in respect of data privacy pre and post charge, whilst aligning with relevant disclosure legislation; 

• Comprehensive training for front line officers and staff that places redaction and disclosure processes at the centre of every investigation; 

• Shared standards and workflows between police, CPS, and courts; 

• A coordinated business change programme that embeds redaction into digital investigation strategies as a core capability; and 

• Investment in scalable, secure redaction tools for imagery, audio, video and documentation. 

  
  

Specialist redaction tools exist already, particularly for text, video and audio - and are being used extensively in the legal profession and increasingly in policing. These tools are improving all the time and are capable of reviewing and flagging the types of personal data that exist within police case files.  

NPCC is already rolling out a framework to enable local forces to adopt new technologies in an easier and more consistent fashion. While this enables police to harness the capability of innovative tools and make use of emerging technologies such as AI, this won’t be enough on its own. 

Before joining Principle One, Phil Tomlinson was a Senior Investigating Officer and understands the impact this has on operational teams. “Redaction is no longer an admin task that can be completed at your desk with a highlighter pen, it’s a legal and operational minefield for disclosure officers, and even more so for front line staff. Operational staff tend to adopt the good old-fashioned A, B, C method of investigation when considering new technology - Accept nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything. However, they must be careful they don’t add a D to that list – and don’t Dismiss anything new.  

Officers are now caught between balancing compliance with GDPR, disclosure obligations under CPIA, and increasing public demand for transparency. On top of this, the volume of digital material, both evidential and unused is going up and up.  Without clear and consistent processes, proper training and modern tools, mistakes are inevitable and the risks are growing.” 

There is no question that the redaction issue currently faced by policing could be significantly improved by adopting a whole-system approach that incorporates the various elements highlighted in this article. Will it be hard? Most definitely. But will it lead to better outcomes for victims, better collaboration between the police and its judicial partners, and better use of limited police resources? Absolutely!

 [1] The Policing Productivity Review, October 2023