Police employee may lose job over use of computer

Police employee may lose job over use of computer

Samantha Jane Caffrey (43), of Grande Route de Falldouet, St Martin, pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully obtaining personal data from the States police computer and was bound over to keep the peace for six months. The court was told that the matter has had ‘a traumatic impact on her’ and that she was ‘broken both mentally and physically’.

Police legal adviser Lauren Hallam said that Caffrey was at work in the force intelligence bureau at police headquarters on 5 July last year.

‘At some point she received a phone call from a friend who was looking to buy a tractor but said that the seller did not have the log book,’ she said.

Miss Hallam said that the caller gave Caffrey the registration number, which she entered into the police computer. The search produced the name of the registered owner and the defendant’s friend said that they would look up the name in the telephone directory.

The court heard that at a meeting with a police inspector on 16 August, Caffrey admitted using the police computer to make the search. During that interview, she admitted obtaining personal data which was not disclosed for the purposes for which it was intended. Miss Hallam said that the defendant had received online data protection training and was experienced in her job.

The charge against Caffrey read that she ‘knowingly without the consent of the relevant data controller, unlawfully obtained personal data from the information contained in personal data from the police computer known as “View Point” contrary to Article 55 (1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law’.

Advocate Nicholas Miere, defending, said that the offence was ‘a momentary lapse in judgment’. He said she had an ‘unblemished 13-year record in the force intelligence bureau’ and that she made no gain from her action. He said there was no harm caused to the person to whom the data related.

Advocate Miere said that Caffrey was initially told that the matter would be dealt with internally but she was formally suspended on 24 August and informed that she would be the subject of formal disciplinary action. He said that she could now well lose her job, as the disciplinary procedure was stayed pending the outcome of the court case.

He said that she was ‘broken both mentally and physically’ by what had happened. And he submitted that at the time of the disclosure, her family was under a great deal of stress and strain.

‘Her husband had lost his job and was going to the Employment Tribunal, she was under pressure at work and was covering safeguarding inquiries and also covering for the force intelligence officer,’ he said.

In imposing the six-month order binding her over to be be of good behaviour, Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris said: ‘I think it was a momentary lapse of judgment. There is no question of financial gain and no harm caused to the individual whose data was
disclosed.’

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –